1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION

KEITH NOLLIE §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23cv74-RWS-JBB

TDCJ-STATE CLASSIFICATION §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff Keith Nollie filed this civil action complaining of alleged violations of his 

constitutional rights. The case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules 

for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. The sole named Defendant is the 

State Classification Department of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Plaintiff appears to request a transfer away from the Telford Unit of TDCJ and placement 

in protective custody. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended 

complaint setting out a short and plain statement of his claim, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff received a copy of this order on August 25, 2023, but has not complied. Dkt. 

No. 7. While he wrote a letter to the Court on September 8, 2023, this letter says that he is being

harassed and assaulted at the Estelle Unit and was sprayed with gas on August 30, 2023. Dkt. No. 

8. TDCJ records confirm that Plaintiff is presently housed at the Estelle Unit, in Huntsville, Walker 

County, Texas.1 02081490

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

any order of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b). Such a dismissal may be done sua sponte and appellate review is confined to whether the 

1 Inmate Search for Keith Nollie, https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov/InmateSearch/start.action (Input “02081490” for TDCJ 

number search field; then click “Search” hyperlink).

Case 5:23-cv-00074-RWS-JBB Document 9 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 27
2

district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action. Id. (citing Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 

370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)).

Dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court is an 

extreme sanction which should be employed only when “the plaintiff’s conduct has threatenedthe 

integrity of the judicial process [in a way which] leav[es] the Court no choice but to deny that 

plaintiffits benefit.” McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 790 (5thCir. 1988) (citingRogers v.Kroger 

Co., 669 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1982)). A court should consider lesser sanctions, such as fines, 

costs, damages, conditional dismissals, and dismissals without prejudice, among other lesser 

measures, prior to dismissing an action with prejudice. McNeal, 842 F.2d at 793.

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint is not an action which threatens the judicial 

process, rendering dismissal with prejudice unwarranted. The imposition of fines and costs is not 

appropriate given the status and nature of this case. The incidents complained of were on-going at 

the time of the filing of the complaint in July of 2023, giving Plaintiff ample time in which to re-file 

his lawsuit, should he choose to do so, within the two-year limitations period. Any complaints 

concerning the conditions of confinement at the Estelle Unitshould be addressed by the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, the district and division in which the 

Estelle Unit islocated. Upon consideration of all relevant factors, the Court has determined that the 

interests of justice are best served by a dismissal of this lawsuit without prejudice.

RECOMMENDATION

Itis accordingly recommended thatthe above-styled civilrightslawsuit be dismissedwithout 

prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendationsshall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objectionswithin 14 days after being served with a copy.

In order 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 

Case 5:23-cv-00074-RWS-JBB Document 9 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28
3

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is

found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adoptedby 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 

(5th Cir. 2017).

.

____________________________________

J. Boone Baxter

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SIGNED this the 19th day of January, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00074-RWS-JBB Document 9 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 29