IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

CHARLES EDWARD SCOTT, § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Plaintiff, 

vs. § CIVIL ACTION No. 4:22-CV-757-P (BP) 

§ 

CITY OF DALLAS, et al., § 

§ 

Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Charles Edward Scott has filed a civil case. ECF No. I. Resolution of preliminary 

matters was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b) and Special Order No. 3. ECF No. 4. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of 

the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows: 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 

A. NATURE OF THE CASE 

This case is a new civil action. 

B. PARTIES 

Charles Edward Scott is the Plaintiff. In his filings, Plaintiff lists the City of Dallas and the 

City ofF01i Wmih as Defendants. See ECF Nos. I, 3. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff filed this suit accompanied by a long-form application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. ECF No. 3. But as that document included no answers to any of the questions or sections 

I 

Case 4:22-cv-00757-P Document 7 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 17
in the form, the Court issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency directing Plaintiff to complete and 

re-file a fully completed long-form in-forma-pauperis application, in order for the Court to make 

the pauper determination. ECF No. 6. That order directed Plaintiff to either pay the applicable 

filing and administrative fees or re-file the fully completed long-form on or before September 12, 

2022. Id. And, it directed that "failure to timely pay the filing and administrative fees or submit 

a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, could result in the dismissal 

without prejudice of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b ). Id. As of the date 

of this order, Plaintiff has not completed and filed the requisite form or otherwise filed any 

document responsive to the Court's order. 

Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua 

sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 

1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court's inherent power to control its docket, 

prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. 

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply 

with this Court's Notice of Deficiency and Order, this case may be dismissed for failure to comply 

with a Court order and for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

RECOMMENDATION 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that that all of Plaintiffs claims be DISMISSED for 

lack of prosecution, without prejudice to being refiled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

NOTICE OF IUGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

A copy of this rep01i and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner 

provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each paiiy to this action has the right to serve and 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00757-P Document 7 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 18
file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate 

Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the 

pmiy has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only 

make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a 

proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a pmiy, except upon grounds of plain error 

or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto 

Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fomieen days). 

ORDER 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until September 29, 2022 

to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, 

conclusions and recommendation. 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to 

the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and is 

hereby, RETURNED to the docket of the United States District Judge. 

SIGNED September Li_, 2022. 

URETON 

TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00757-P Document 7 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 19