IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ERIC GANT, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1455-K

§ ECF

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, §

et al., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the District Court’s Standing Order of Reference (doc. 49), this case has been

referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. On October 31, 2005 and

August 28, 2006, the Fifth Circuit issued orders precluding Plaintiff from any further filings until

he pays his sanctions issued by the Fifth Circuit for filing frivolous appeals. Gant v. Lockheed

Martin Corp., No. 04-10915 (5th Cir. October 31, 2005) (unpublished); Gant v. Nicholson, No. 05-

11115 (5th Cir. August 28, 2006) (unpublished). All courts within the Fifth Circuit were directed

to refuse any further filings from Plaintiff until he shows proof that he has satisfied the sanctions.

Id. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for

failure to prosecute or comply with any court order. See Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th

Cir. 1998) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.

1988)). “This authority 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

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01455-K Document 65 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 568
2

399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Plaintiff has not

shown that he has paid any of the sanctions issued by the Fifth Circuit and has been precluded from

making filings with the District Court. This Court recommends that the District Court dismiss this

action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Boudwin, 756 F.2d

at 401 (“Dismissals with prejudice are ‘reserved for the most egregious of cases . . . .’”) (quoting

Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317 (5th Cir. 1982); citing Jone v. Caddo Parish Sch. Bd., 704 F.2d

206 (5th Cir. 1983)).

SO RECOMMENDED this 18th day of October, 2006.

___________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01455-K Document 65 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 569
3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these conclusions and

recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any

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

objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically

identify those conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District

Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such

written objections to these proposed conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de

novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed conclusions and recommendation

within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the legal

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

plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc).

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01455-K Document 65 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 570