Williams v. Humphrey et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ABILENE DIVISION
SHERWIN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAD HUMPHREY, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-00207-H-BU
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Sherwin Williams brings this action against Chad Humphrey and FNU
Leen (collectively, “the Defendants”), alleging that they violated his constitutional rights.
Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons below, the Court should dismiss Williams’s claims against all
Defendants for failure to prosecute.
I. JURISDICTION
Williams brings his constitutional claims against federal actors under Bivens, grant-
ing this Court subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. No. 1. Venue is
proper in the Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division, because Williams’s claims arise
from 	his 	incarceration 	at 	FCI 	Big 	Springs 	in 	Howard 	County, 	Texas. 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1391(b)(2). The undersigned has the authority to enter these Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations after United States District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix referred
Williams’s case to the undersigned for pretrial management. Dkt. No. 6; 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). Williams has not consented to the undersigned exercising the full jurisdiction
Case 1:25-cv-00207-H-BU Document 18 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
of this Court.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Williams filed his Complaint on October 6, 2025, alleging that the Defendants al-
lowed toxic mold growth at Big Spring that caused him to contract meningitis.1 Dkt. No.
1. Williams was represented by Solomon M. Radner of Radner Law Group, PLLC. Dkt.
No. 1. Shortly after the case was transferred to this Court, Mr. Radner filed a Motion to
Appear as Lead Counsel without Local Counsel. Dkt. Nos. 7–8. In the motion, Mr. Radner
explained that he would be unable to apply for full admission in the Northern District of
Texas because he could not identify local counsel who would sponsor him. Dkt. No. 8 at
2–5. The Court denied the motion on Oct. 28, 2025, noting that he could apply for admis-
sion pro hac vice (PHV) rather than seek full admission. Dkt. No. 9.
Mr. Radner did not apply for full or PHV admission throughout November. On De-
cember 1, 2025, the Court then entered a Notice of Deficiency notifying Mr. Radner of his
lack of bar admission and requiring him to apply for admission by December 15, 2025.
Dkt. No. 10. Mr. Radner filed an application for admission to proceed PHV, but failed to
identify valid local counsel in accordance with the Court’s local rules. Dkt. Nos. 11–13.
The Court entered a second Notice of Deficiency on December 29, 2025, ordering Mr.
Radner to supplement his application by identifying local counsel. Dkt. No. 13.
Mr. Radner instead filed a Motion to Withdraw, which was granted by the Court on
February 5, 2026. Dkt. Nos. 14–15. On the same day, Williams was ordered to file a Notice
1 Williams initially filed in the Midland/Odessa Division, but his case was transferred to the Abilene Divi-
sion on October 9, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 1–4.
Case 1:25-cv-00207-H-BU Document 18 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
of Intent with the Court by March 5, 2026, indicating whether he intended to proceed pro
se or be represented by other counsel. Dkt. No. 16. Williams did not file a notice of intent.
On March 16, 2026, the Court then entered a Show Cause Order giving Williams until
March 27, 2026, to file the notice of intent. Dkt. No. 17. Williams was cautioned that failure
to respond would result in dismissal of his case for lack of prosecution. Id. As of the date
of this FCR, Williams has not filed a notice of intent.
III. ANALYSIS
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an
action sua sponte for failure to comply with court orders or for failure to prosecute. Not-
tingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016); McCullough v.
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court’s inherent
power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962). A Rule 41(b) dismissal may be with
or without prejudice, but dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only when a litigant’s acts
or omissions are “the result of purposeful delay or contumaciousness” and “the district
court employed lesser sanctions before dismissing the action [with prejudice].” Long v.
Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir. 1996).
The undersigned concludes that it is appropriate to dismiss Williams’s case for lack
of prosecution. There is no indication that the Defendants have been served; since Mr.
Radner’s withdrawal, Williams has not communicated with the Court or complied with any
of the Court’s orders. Thus, dismissal of his case is appropriate. Because there is no indi-
cation that Williams’s failure to comply arose from purposeful delay or contumaciousness,
Case 1:25-cv-00207-H-BU Document 18 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
the undersigned recommends that Williams’s case be dismissed without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS
Williams’s claims against all defendants without prejudice for lack of prosecution.
V. RIGHT TO OBJECT
A copy of these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these Find-
ings, Conclusions, and Recommendations must file specific written objections within four-
teen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
the objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magis-
trate judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations where the disputed determina-
tion 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 aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of
plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
ORDERED this 9th day of April 2026.
JOHN R. PARKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00207-H-BU Document 18 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>