1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

MICHAEL RAY WATKINS, #2420686

VS. 

WANDA ALLEN, ET AL.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23cv212

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Michael Ray Watkins filed the above-styled and numbered complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was referred to the undersigned United States 

Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition 

of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules 

for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge.

On June 9, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to supply the United States Clerk’s Office,

within fourteen days from the receipt of the Order, with (1) the name(s) or specific position(s) and

corresponding shift(s) for Defendant “Dr. FNU LNU” and (2) the proper name of Defendant

“Hopkins County Sheriff” so that service can be made. (Dkt. #14). The Court cautioned Plaintiff 

that failure to comply may result in dismissal of Defendant “Dr. FNU LNU” and Defendant 

“Hopkins County Sheriff” from this action. The record shows that Plaintiff acknowledged receipt 

of the Order on June 14, 2023. (Dkt. #15). As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 

Court’s Order; thus, he has failed to prosecute his case.

The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound 

discretion of the court and appellate review is confined solely in whether the court’s discretion was 

abused. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. 

Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for 

Case 4:23-cv-00212-SDJ-KPJ Document 16 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

41
2

want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also, sua sponte, dismiss an action 

whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion 

Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to 

comply with the Court’s Order (Dkt. #14). Therefore, the claims against Defendant “Dr. FNU 

LNU” and Defendant “Hopkins County Sheriff” should be dismissed without prejudice for failure 

to prosecute.

RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended Plaintiff’s claims and lawsuit against Defendant “Dr. FNU 

LNU” and Defendant “Hopkins County Sheriff” be dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b).

Within fourteen days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must serve 

and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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 party from appealing the unobjectedto factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that 

such consequences will result from a failure to object. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superceded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Case 4:23-cv-00212-SDJ-KPJ Document 16 Filed 07/10/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

42
3

Case 4:23-cv-00212-SDJ-KPJ Document 16 Filed 07/10/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

43