IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

TIMOTHY JAMES LOWE #68544 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv409

GREGG COUNTY JAIL §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Gregg County Jail proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

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

in jail. The case was referred to the undersigned for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On September 29, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 

thirty days to identify the proper defendants to his suit and provide sufficient facts to support his 

claims. (Dkt. #7.) The order expressly cautioned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of 

this case. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has failed to comply or to take any other action to prosecute this case 

since that date.

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 

Case 6:23-cv-00409-JCB-JDL Document 9 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
2

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 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 this case without prejudice.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that 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).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of December, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00409-JCB-JDL Document 9 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21