1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ANGELENA N. BAIZE,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DISTRICT ONE, HENDERSON 

COUNTY, TX, SMITH COUNTY, TX, 

UNKNOWN HENDERSON COUNTY 

SHERIFF'S OFFICERS, ON DUTY 

6/6/2019; UNKNOWN SMITH COUNTY 

SHERIFF'S OFFICERS, ON DUTY 

5/14/2021; TYLER LAW 

ENFORCEMENT, ON DUTY 5/14/22; 

DEBRA DIERTOY, KATHLEEN 

MENDOZA, JAMES TROY, SIMON 

JAMES OWEN, EUCHARICE 

MENDOZA, TIM THIERREN, KEVIN 

ROCKEFELLER, LUISA ORTEGA,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00106-JCB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Angelena Baize, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on February 24, 2023. 

(Doc. No. 1.) On March 1, 2023, the court issued an order informing Plaintiff that she did not 

submit the requisite filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and ordered 

her to either pay the $402 filing fee or submit an application to proceed IFP within 30 days of 

receipt of the court’s order. (Doc. No. 3.) The court warned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply 

with the court’s order may result in dismissal of the lawsuit. Id. Plaintiff’s acknowledgement of 

receipt of the deficiency order was received by the court on March 8, 2023. (Doc. No. 4.) More 

Case 6:23-cv-00106-JCB-JDL Document 6 Filed 04/18/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 11
2

than 30 days has passed since Plaintiff received the court’s order and Plaintiff has not complied 

with the court’s order. 

A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any order 

of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The 

exercise of the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or obey a court order 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 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas 

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

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 (5th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff has not filed an IFP application, or paid 

the requisite filing fee; thus, the lawsuit should be dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to 

obey an order. 

Having not received the filing fee or an application to proceed IFP by the court-ordered 

deadline, the court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure 

to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may 

serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report. A 

party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations 

contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that 

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

recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to 

Case 6:23-cv-00106-JCB-JDL Document 6 Filed 04/18/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 12
3

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

United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of April, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00106-JCB-JDL Document 6 Filed 04/18/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 13