1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DARIN D. HARRIS, §

#939000 §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01525-K (BT)

§

PROSPERITY BANK, § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a pro se civil action brought by Plaintiff Darin D. Harris, a state 

prisoner. Harris initiated this civil action by filing a two-paged, handwritten 

letter addressed to Karen S. Mitchell, the Clerk of Court for the Northern 

District of Texas. The letter states that it is regarding the “Filing A Criminal 

Complaint With The Federal District Attorney.” Compl. 1 (ECF No. 3). In the 

letter, Harris explains that he previously sent a criminal complaint to the 

“Federal District Attorney.” Id. He further explains that he is not trying to 

create enemies, but he needs for someone to investigate his criminal 

complaint about Prosperity Bank because they have “wronged” him. Id. 

Harris claims that this Court has jurisdiction over the case because 

Prosperity Bank is insured federally under the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC). On July 15, 2022, the Court sent Harris a Notice of 

Deficiency and Order (ECF No. 5), which ordered him to file a complaint in 

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), on a court-approved 

Case 3:22-cv-01525-K-BT Document 6 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 25
2

form, and to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

in this case. The Order further informed Harris that failure to respond and 

cure the deficiencies by August 15, 2022, could result in a recommendation 

that his case be dismissed. Harris has not filed any response, and he has not 

paid the filing fee, filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or 

otherwise complied with the Court’s July 15, 2022 Order. Therefore, this 

case should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b).

Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to 

prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. 

Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing

McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam));

accord Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (failure to comply with a court order); Rosin v. Thaler, 450 F. 

App'x 383, 383-84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (failure to prosecute). “This 

authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to 

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending 

cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 

1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). 

Here, Harris has failed to comply with the Court’s order to file his 

complaint in compliance with Rule 8(a), submit his claims on a courtapproved form, and pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma 

Case 3:22-cv-01525-K-BT Document 6 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 26
3

pauperis. This litigation cannot proceed until he cures these deficiencies. 

Harris has failed to prosecute his lawsuit and also failed to obey a court 

order. Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these circumstances. 

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss Harris’s complaint without prejudice under 

Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed August 16, 2022.

________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will 

bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-01525-K-BT Document 6 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 27