1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ROCKY DWAYNE HILL, #102088 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv383

GREGG COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Rocky Dwayne Hill, a prisoner confined in the Gregg County Jail, proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was referred for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On September 6, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. #9).

Plaintiff was instructed to file his amended complaint within 30 days of the Court’s Order.

On September 7, 2023, the Court received an amended complaint from Plaintiff, which 

contains the same defects that he was ordered to cure. (Dkt. #10). The Court presumes that its 

order to replead and the amended complaint crossed in the mail. 

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended 

complaint. (Dkt. #13). The Court granted the motion and directed Plaintiff to file his amended 

complaint within 30 days of the receipt of the order. (Dkt. #14). 

As of today, Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint, nor has he filed a second 

motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint. In the Order, Plaintiff was warned that 

the failure to comply with the Order may result in the dismissal of the complaint. He has failed to 

prosecute this case. 

Case 6:23-cv-00383-JDK-KNM Document 15 Filed 01/02/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

65
2

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). 

 Recommendation

It is therefore recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for want of 

prosecution. 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 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 

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

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 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 2nd day of January, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00383-JDK-KNM Document 15 Filed 01/02/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

66