1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JERAL DURANT HENDERSON, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01922-E (BT)

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a pro se civil action brought by Plaintiff Jeral Durant 

Henderson. On September 1, 2022, the Court granted Henderson’s motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and attempted to screen his 

complaint. The Court found the complaint deficient and sent Henderson a 

Notice of Deficiency and Order (ECF No. 8), which ordered him to file a 

complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).1 The 

1 Rule 8(a) provides:

 A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's 

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim 

needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the 

alternative or different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Case 3:22-cv-01922-E-BT Document 10 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 74
2

Order further informed Henderson that failure to respond and cure the 

deficiencies by October 3 could result in a recommendation that his case be 

dismissed. Henderson has not filed any response, an amended complaint, or 

otherwise complied with the Court’s September 1 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)). 

Henderson initiated this civil action by filing forty-eight pages of 

unrelated documents. He filed the court-approved form, which was one 

page, but it is nonsensical and purportedly refers to a case from the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Henderson also filed what appears to be pages from 

a bank account at Wells Fargo, a bill from Baylor University Medical Center, 

Case 3:22-cv-01922-E-BT Document 10 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 75
3

a complaint form for Texas Workforce Solutions, and a job advertisement 

for a custodian position with the City of Dallas. But Henderson’s submission 

does not contain a short and plain statement of any claim showing that he is 

entitled to relief. He has thus failed to comply with the Court’s order to file 

his complaint in compliance with Rule 8(a). The Court cannot screen his 

complaint, and this litigation cannot proceed until he cures this deficiency.

Henderson 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 Henderson’s complaint without prejudice 

under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed October 4, 2022.

_____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01922-E-BT Document 10 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 76
4

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-01922-E-BT Document 10 Filed 10/04/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 77