IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBIN HEADSPETH, on behalf of §

Jennifer Ann Leinberger, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-875-O-BP 

 §

N. LANE AKIN, Sheriff, §

Wise County, Texas, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

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 Special

Order No. 3. ECF No. 2. 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

Robin Headspeth, on behalf of her daughter, Jennifer Ann Leinberger, is the Plaintiff. In 

the complaint, Plaintiff lists as defendants N. Lane Akin, Brandon S. Wood, and a John Doe Jail 

Officer. ECF No. 1.

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Plaintiff filed this case without paying the applicable filing and administrative fees totaling 

Case 4:22-cv-00875-O Document 6 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 14
2

$402, and without seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, the Court issued an Order and 

Notice of Deficiency directing Plaintiff to pay the applicable fees or complete and file a long-form 

in-forma-pauperis application, in order for the Court to have sufficient information to make the 

pauper determination. ECF No. 4. That Order directed Plaintiff to pay the applicable fees or file 

the fully completed long-form by October 25, 2022. Id. And, it directed that “[f]ailure to timely 

submit the applicable fees or a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis by 

that deadline could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed without further 

notice.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Plaintiff did not comply, and the Court then issued a 

second Order extending the time for Plaintiff to comply until November 14, 2022. ECF No. 5. That 

Order expressly noted that “[f]ailure to timely submit the applicable fees or a fully completed 

application to proceed in forma pauperis by that deadline could result in a recommendation that 

this case be dismissed without further notice.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Plaintiff has not 

responded. Because Plaintiff has wholly failed to pay the applicable fees or file a fully completed 

in-forma-pauperis application, she has failed to comply with this Court’s orders. 

 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 deficiency orders, 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). 

Case 4:22-cv-00875-O Document 6 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 15
3

The undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O’Connor 

DISMISS all of Plaintiff’s claims for lack of prosecution or for failure to obey a court order, 

without prejudice to their being refiled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served 

with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must 

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

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th 

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on November 22, 2022.

 

Hal R. Ray, Jr. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:22-cv-00875-O Document 6 Filed 11/22/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 16