1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

JOHN WESLEY STOUT, #1314715

VS. 

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23cv998

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Petitioner John Wesley Stout filed the above-numbered petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition was referred to the undersigned United States

Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition 

of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules 

for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge.

On November 13, 2023, the Court ordered Petitioner, within thirty days from the receipt 

of the Order, to complete a standard § 2241 form and submit it to the Court and to either pay the 

$5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, together with an in forma 

pauperis data sheet reflecting Petitioner’s last six months of financial activity from his inmate trust 

account. (Dkt. #3). As of this date, Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s Order; thus, he 

has failed to prosecute his case. 

The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound 

discretion of the court, and appellate review is confined solely in whether the court’s discretion

was abused. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas 

Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court dismiss 

for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also, sua sponte, dismiss an action 

whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion 

Case 4:23-cv-00998-ALM-KPJ Document 5 Filed 01/18/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 17
2

Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). In the present case, Petitioner has failed 

to comply with the Court’s Order. Therefore, the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended that the § 2241 petition for habeas corpus be dismissed without 

prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). 

Within fourteen days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must serve 

and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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 report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. 

An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate 

judge is not specific.

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjectedto factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that

such consequences will result from a failure to object. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superceded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Case 4:23-cv-00998-ALM-KPJ Document 5 Filed 01/18/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 18