1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

DANIEL ELIAS NAVARRETE, #225305

VS. 

BENJAMIN LOPEZ, ET AL.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23cv535

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Daniel Elias Navarrete 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 23, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $38.51 

within thirty days from receipt of the Order. (Dkt. #8). On July 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff 

an extension of time in which to pay the initial partial filing fee and ordered Plaintiff to pay the 

initial partial filing fee of $38.51 within thirty days from receipt of the Order. (Dkt. #13). The 

Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to pay the initial partial filing fee or to show that Plaintiff has 

insufficient assets or means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee may result in the dismissal 

of the case. (Dkt. #13). The record shows that Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the Order (Dkt. 

#13) on August 2, 2023. (Dkt. #14). As of this date, the Court has not received any fees from 

Plaintiff for this case. 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 

Case 4:23-cv-00535-SDJ-KPJ Document 15 Filed 09/06/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

34
2

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 

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

RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended that 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-00535-SDJ-KPJ Document 15 Filed 09/06/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

35
3

Case 4:23-cv-00535-SDJ-KPJ Document 15 Filed 09/06/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

36