1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

CYNTHIA R. BERG,

Plaintiff,

v. 

THE REGENT and HUNTER 

WARFIELD,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-601-ALM-KPJ

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter was referred to the undersigned for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). As set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff Cynthia R. Berg’s (“Plaintiff”) claims against 

Defendants The Regent and Hunter Warfield (collectively, “Defendants”) should be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution.

June 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed the General Complaint (the “Complaint”) (Dkt. 1) against 

Defendants. See Dkt. 1. In the Complaint (Dkt. 1), Plaintiff alleges that Defendants overcharged 

her $949.00 in rent. Id. at 4. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ independent contractor 

splattered beige paint on her vehicle, causing $1,699.30 in damages. Id. at 4–5. Plaintiff alleges no 

facts supporting the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter.

On September 6, 2023, the Court issued an Order (Dkt. 4) noting the apparent lack of 

jurisdiction. See Dkt. 4 at 1–2. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a status report 

explaining the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction no later than fourteen (14) days after receiving 

service of the Order (Dkt. 4). Id. at 2. The Court further advised Plaintiff that failure to file a status 

Case 4:23-cv-00601-ALM-KPJ Document 6 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 26
2

report or otherwise act will result in the Court recommending this matter be dismissed without 

prejudice. Id.

On September 6, 2023, the Clerk’s Office mailed a copy of the Order (Dkt. 4) to Plaintiff. 

Two months later, on November 6, 2023, the mailed Order (Dkt. 4) was returned marked 

“RETURN TO SENDER – VACANT – UNABLE TO FORWARD.” See Dkt. 5. Plaintiff is 

responsible for keeping the Clerk’s Office advised in writing of her current physical address. See 

LOC. R. CV-11.

To date, Plaintiff has not contacted the Clerk’s Office or otherwise taken any action in this

matter. It is, therefore, recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may 

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

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

A party is entitled to a de novo review by the district court of the findings and conclusions 

contained in this report only if specific objections are made, and failure to timely file written 

objections to any proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report 

shall bar an aggrieved party from appellate review of those factual findings and legal conclusions 

accepted by the district court, except on grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been 

served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 148 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 

1996) (en banc), superseded 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-00601-ALM-KPJ Document 6 Filed 11/08/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 27
3

Case 4:23-cv-00601-ALM-KPJ Document 6 Filed 11/08/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28