IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

RODERICK LAMOND DOUGLAS §

#82796

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv037

SMITH COUNTY §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Roderick Lamond Douglas, an inmate of the Smith County Jail proceeding pro se, 

filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional 

rights. (Dkt. #1.) The case was referred to the undersigned for findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On January 23, 2023, the Court observed that Plaintiff had neither paid the required filing 

fee nor sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Dkt. #3) Accordingly, the Court gave 

him thirty days to satisfy the filing fee requirement to proceed with this case. (Id.) In response to 

that order, Plaintiff filed an IFP application that was not supported by the required trust account 

documentation. (Dkt. #4.) On February 8, 2023, the Court gave Plaintiff an additional thirty days 

to file the required documentation. (Dkt. #5.) In the same Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 

file, within thirty days, a “Notice of Current Address” to clear up the confusion about his location 

created by a conflict between the return addresses on Plaintiff’s envelopes and stamps indicating 

that they were mailed from the Smith County Jail. (Id.) Plaintiff did not comply with either aspect 

of that order. Thus, in addition to failing to comply with the Court’s orders, he has neither paid the 

Case 6:23-cv-00037-JCB-JDL Document 11 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

62
2

filing fee for this case nor filed a properly supported IFP motion as required by the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (requiring prisoners seeking pauper status to 

support their applications with “a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional 

equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the 

complaint”).

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

with any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 

1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (“The court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte, 

without motion by a defendant.”). Dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order 

is an extreme sanction that should be employed only when “the plaintiff’s conduct has threatened 

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

plaintiff its benefit.” McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Rogers 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 dismissal without prejudice, among other lesser 

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

Here, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders is not an action that threatens the 

judicial process—thereby rendering a dismissal with prejudice unwarranted. Therefore, upon

consideration of all relevant factors, the Court has determined that the interests of justice are best

served by a dismissal of this case without prejudice.

Case 6:23-cv-00037-JCB-JDL Document 11 Filed 05/26/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

63
3

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s IFP motion (Dkt. #4) be denied 

and this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an Order of 

the Court and failure to take the steps necessary to prosecute this case.

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).

The Clerk shall mail this recommendation to both known addresses for Plaintiff and shall 

accept for filing any objection hereto, as an exception to the Court’s previous Order (Dkt. #10).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of May, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00037-JCB-JDL Document 11 Filed 05/26/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

64