1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ROCKY DWAYNE HILL, #102088 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv390

GREGG COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFCE §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Rocky Dwayne Hill, an inmate confined at the Gregg County Jail proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this numbered civil rights lawsuit 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. 

On August 24, 2023, the Court issued an order, (Dkt. #6), directing Plaintiff to file an 

amended complaint no later than thirty days. The order warned him that the failure to do so may 

result in the dismissal of his lawsuit. A copy of this order was sent to Plaintiff at his last-known 

address, with an acknowledgment card. To date, despite a significant lapse in time, Plaintiff has 

not filed an amended complaint as ordered. The Court notes that—in the interim—Plaintiff filed 

several documents, (Dkt. ## 7, 9), but no amended complaint as directed. 

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.”). The district court has both specific and 

inherent power to control its own docket “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket 

with economy of time.” See U.S. v Colomb, 419 F.3d 292, 299 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Miller 

v. Thaler, 434 F. App’x 420, 421 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).

Case 6:23-cv-00390-JDK-KNM Document 11 Filed 07/08/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

38
2

Here, Plaintiff failed to file his amended complaint as ordered. He has therefore failed to 

comply with an Order of the Court. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order 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 these cases without prejudice. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is recommended that the above-styled action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the Court. 

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).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of July, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00390-JDK-KNM Document 11 Filed 07/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

39