1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

MUSTAFA EL SHABAZZ BEY, also

known as NOLAND ROOSEVELT BYRD

VS. 

MICHAEL TANG, ET AL.

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23cv151

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff 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 October 26, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff, within fourteen days from receipt of the 

Order, to file a second amended complaint and any request to proceed in forma pauperis using his 

full legal name, Noland Roosevelt Byrd. (Dkt. #24). The Court further ordered that if Plaintiff did

not file a request to proceed in forma pauperis, he shall be required to pay all regular filing fees 

required by the Clerk of Court ($402.00). (Dkt. #24). The record shows Plaintiff received the Order 

on November 3, 2023. (Dkt. #27). 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 want 

Case 4:23-cv-00151-SDJ-KPJ Document 30 Filed 11/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

110
2

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 orders. Therefore, the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended the case 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-00151-SDJ-KPJ Document 30 Filed 11/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

111