1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRAYLON RAY COULTER, §

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01459-G (BT)

§

NFN JACKSON, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a civil rights case filed by Braylon Ray Coulter, a former 

prisoner at Johnson County Jail in Cleburne, Texas. On July 6, 2022, the 

Court issued a Consent Form (ECF No. 1) and Notice and Instructions to a 

Pro Se Party (ECF No. 2). Among other things, the Instructions advised 

Coulter, “You must notify the Court if your address changes, or your case 

may be dismissed.” (Id. at 1.) In another case brought by Coulter, Case 

Number 3:22-cv-1384-X-BT, on July 22, the Court issued an order granting 

Coulter leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Case Number 3:22-cv-1384-

X-BT, ECF No. 10.) That Order required “the agency having custody” of 

Coulter to deduct 20% of each deposit made to his inmate trust account and 

to forward payments to the Court on a regular basis. (Case Number 3:22-cv1384-X-BT, ECF No. 10 at 1.) In that case, on August 5, the Court received a 

Notice from the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office, Inmate Trust Account at 

the Johnson County Jail, which states, “I/M Released 7/20/22.” (Case 

Case 3:22-cv-01459-G-BT Document 9 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 84
2

Number 3:22-cv-1384-X-BT, ECF No. 11 at 1.) Coulter has failed to provide 

the Court with a new address. Therefore, this case should be dismissed 

without prejudice under Rule 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, this litigation cannot proceed because Coulter has failed to keep 

the Court apprised of his current address. Coulter filed this case on July 6, 

and that same day, the Court mailed Coulter Instructions, which advised 

him: “You must notify the Court if your address changes, or your case may 

be dismissed.” (ECF No. 2 at 1.) On August 5, the Court received a Notice 

from the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office in Case Number 3:22-cv-1384-XBT that Coulter has been released from the Johnson County Jail. Yet, Coulter 

Case 3:22-cv-01459-G-BT Document 9 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 85
3

has failed to provide the Court with a current address. Without an address, 

the Court is unable to communicate with Coulter about his case. 

By failing to provide the Court with a current address, Coulter has 

failed to comply with a court order and failed to prosecute his lawsuit. 

Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these circumstances. The 

Court should dismiss Coulter’s case without prejudice under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed August 22, 2022.

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES 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-01459-G-BT Document 9 Filed 08/22/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 86