1

 It initially appeared the plaintiff sued only Highland Hills in this action. However, the Court recently discovered a

second page of plaintiff’s complaint which clearly identifies Aaron Johnson as a defendant. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRENA OTEKPEN, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-2448-N 

)

HIGHLAND HILLS, et al., )

Defendants. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

In November 2004, plaintiff commenced this civil action against Highland Hills and Aaron

Johnson.1 On November 19, 2004, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On May 12, 2005, it sent plaintiff a Magistrate Judge’s Questionnaire (MJQ). It therein directed

plaintiff to answer the questions contained in that document and return the answers within thirty

days. It warned plaintiff, furthermore, that “[f]ailure to file answers to the Questions may result in

the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.” To date, plaintiff has filed no response to the

MJQ. 

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

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,

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02448-N Document 6 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 33
2

1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 prisoner action). 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). Plaintiff has failed to

comply with the order of the Court that she file her answers within thirty days of the Questionnaire

dated May 12, 2005. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss her complaint.

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

SIGNED this 13th day of July, 2005. 

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any

party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file and serve

written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made.

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. Failure to file

written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten days after

being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds

of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02448-N Document 6 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 34