IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

KARL LYNN MCGEE,

Plaintiff, 

v.

BEVERLY MELONTREE, U.S. 

BANKRUPTCY COURT CLERK, U.S. 

BANKRUPTCY COURT OFFICIAL, 

TYLER PD, COUNTY COURT TWO, 

SPEARS HEARING,

Defendants.

§

§

§ 

§

§ 

§ CASE NO. 6:23-CV-00133-JDK-KNM

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 13) as filed 

on June 29, 2023. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 13) was filed on June 

29, 2023, but docketed after the Court issued its Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 14) of 

June 30, 2023. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 

13), the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion, withdraws its previous Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. No. 14), and issues the following recommendation in its place. 

On May 24, 2023, the Court entered a Deficiency Order (Doc. No. 6) due to Plaintiff’s 

failure to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was 

ordered to correct the deficiency by either paying the full filing fee or filing a completed motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis within five business days. Instead of complying with the Court’s 

Order, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Deficiency Order (Doc. No. 8) stating that he seeks 

relief of waiving the filing fee. The Court interpreted Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Deficiency 

Case 6:23-cv-00133-JDK-KNM Document 15 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

25
2

Order (Doc. No. 8) as a Motion for Extension of Time and granted that Motion for Extension of 

Time. Doc. No. 9. The Court allowed Plaintiff an extension of five business days to correct the 

deficiency by paying the full filing fee or filing a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

1

Plaintiff received the Court’s Order (Doc. No. 9) on June 17, 2023. Doc. No. 12. 

Although Plaintiff received a blank copy of an application to proceed in forma pauperis,

2

Plaintiff still submitted an incomplete Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and failed to follow 

its included directions. See Doc. No. 13. Plaintiff did not answer whether he had cash on hand or 

money in checking or savings accounts. See id. at 2. Plaintiff only referenced his trust fund account 

and failed to attach the required 6-month history of his trust fund account.3 Plaintiff also failed to 

disclose whether he owned any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable 

property, instead referencing “bankruptcy case # 9560037-A.” See id. Therefore, despite being 

granted an extension of time to pay the filing fee or file a complete application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, Plaintiff has failed to do so. 

A district court may dismiss an action for the failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply

with any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126,

1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (“The court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte,

without motion by a defendant.”). Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order (Doc. 

No. 9), Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(b).

1 The Clerk was directed to, and did so, include a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court’s 

Order (Doc. No. 9) when mailed to Plaintiff.

2

(See Doc. No. 12)

3 Specifically, Plaintiff states “inmate trust account needed from Tyler Smith County Sherriff Department.” Pl.’s 

Mot. to Proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. No. 13 at 3. 

Case 6:23-cv-00133-JDK-KNM Document 15 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

26
3

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated above and upon due consideration, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 13), WITHDRAWS its previous Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. No. 14), and ISSUES this Report and Recommendation in its place. 

The Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 3) be DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and 

file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after service shall bar that party 

from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations, 

and except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. 

United States Auto. Assn., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on 

other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen 

days).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of July, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00133-JDK-KNM Document 15 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

27