1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

CHANSLER DEPAUL MALLARD §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv65

OFFICER KRICK, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff Chansler Mallard, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Correctional Institutions Division proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit complaining of alleged 

violations of his constitutional rights. The lawsuit 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 Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the statutory filing fee or properly seek leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis. By separate order, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 

setting out a short and plain statement of his claims. Plaintiff received copies of these orders but to 

date has not complied, nor has he shown good cause for his failure to do so.

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); Rule 41(b),

F. R. Civ. P. Such a dismissal may be done sua sponte and appellate review is confined to whether 

the 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, 1388-89 (1962).

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint or to pay the filing fee or seek leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis are not actions which threaten the judicial process, rendering dismissal 

with prejudice unwarranted. The imposition of fines and costs is not appropriate given the status

Case 6:23-cv-00065-JDK-KNM Document 10 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8
2

and nature of this case. The incidents complained of in the original complaint appear to be on-going 

at the time of the filing of the complaint, giving Plaintiff ample time in which to re-file his lawsuit, 

should he choose to do so, within the two-yearlimitations period. 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 partiesin 

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 

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed finding 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. 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 adopted by 

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

(5th Cir. 2017).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of October, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00065-JDK-KNM Document 10 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 9