IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

MALIK ABDUL JAMERSON BEY, § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-988-P (BJ) 

396TM DISTRCT COURT, 

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., 

Defendants. 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Malik Abdul Jameson Bey ("Plaintiff') has filed a civil case. ECF No. 1. 

Resolution of preliminary matters was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Miscellaneous Order No. 6. 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 

Malik Abdul Jamerson Bey is the removing paiiy Plaintiff. As best the Court can discern, 

Plaintiff lists as defendants the 396th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas and the State of Texas. 

Cover Sheet, ECF No. 1-1. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

Prose plaintiff Jamerson-Bey filed this removal action on November 2, 2022. ECF No. I. 

The Court initially issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency directing Plaintiff to either pay the 

Case 4:22-cv-00988-P Document 18 Filed 01/04/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 382
applicable fees or file a completed in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff then filed a 

form application, but because that in-forma-paupers motion was wholly incomplete, the Court 

issued a Second Order and Notice of Deficiency, directing him to either pay the filing and 

administrative fees or file an amended IFP application with complete answers to each question in 

the long-form in-forma-pauperis application. ECF No. 15. The Court warned Plaintiff that his case 

could be subject to summary dismissal without further notice if he failed to timely comply. Id. 

That second deficiency order expressly informed Plaintiff that "[flailure 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 4l(b)." 

ECF No. 15. Plaintiff has not responded. Because Plaintiff has wholly failed to pay the fees or file 

a fully completed in-forma-pauperis application, he has failed to comply with this Court's orders. 

Rule 4l(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a coutt to dismiss an action sua 

sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the coutt. 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 coutt calendars. 

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

with this Court's deficiency orders, this case may be dismissed for failure to comply with a Coutt 

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. 4l(b). 

Case 4:22-cv-00988-P Document 18 Filed 01/04/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 383
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1 ), each party to this action has the right 

to serve and 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 party 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 party, 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 fourteen days). 

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

the undersigned for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and is hereby, RETURNED 

to the docket of the United States District Judge. 

SIGNED January !=L_, 2023. 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00988-P Document 18 Filed 01/04/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 384