Woods v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ROBERT WOODS, JR., as 	§
Guardian of Billie Sharlene Woods, 	§
an alleged incapacitated person, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:26-CV-373-S-BW
§
WELLS FARGO HOME 	§
MORTGAGE, a Division of 	§
Wells Fargo, N.A. 	§
Defendant. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This action should be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
because the plaintiff in this action is not represented by counsel admitted to practice
in this court and cannot proceed pro se as a legal representative of another person.
Plaintiff Robert Woods, Jr., through Attorney Colin Smith, filed this lawsuit
in Probate Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas, on January 27, 2027. (See Dkt. No.
1-4 at ECF p. 2.) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. removed the action on
February 12 based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (See Dkt. No.
1. at 3-4.)
Smith is not admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. Therefore, on February 13, 2026, the undersigned
1 This case was automatically referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for case
management pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) by Special Order 3-251. (See Dkt. No. 2.)
Case 3:26-cv-00373-S-BW Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
ordered Smith, no later than March 5, to either become admitted to practice in this
court or file a motion for admission pro hac vice. (Dkt. No. 3.)
Smith did not take either of these actions by that deadline. On March 6, the
undersigned entered an order to show cause, explaining that when counsel fails to
manifest any intent to become admitted to practice, the Court typically would
consider the party to be proceeding in the case pro se. (Dkt. No. 9.) Here, however,
Woods is not a lawyer and cannot appear pro se because he purports to be acting as
the legal guardian of Billie Sharlene Woods. The Court cannot allow him to proceed
pro se to represent the interests of another person. See Mendheim v. AF & L Ins. Co.,
No. 3:07-CV-263-D, 2007 WL 2263929, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2007) (noting the
court has “no discretion to permit [an alleged incapacitated person] to be represented
by someone who is not a licensed attorney” (citing Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016,
1021 (5th Cir. 1998)).
Noting the inability of this case to proceed without an authorized attorney, the
March 6 order directed Attorney Smith to either show cause by March 13, 2026 why
this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to
comply with orders or become admitted to practice, at least in this case. (Dkt. No. 9
at 2.) Alternatively, Plaintiff could cause qualified counsel to appear in this case.
(Id.) The order warned that failure to do any of these things would result in a
recommendation that this case be dismissed.
The deadline for compliance has passed. Smith still has not sought admission,
nor has Plaintiff caused another lawyer to appear in this action.
Case 3:26-cv-00373-S-BW Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) “authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or a
court order.” Smith v. Resurgent Capital Servs. LP, LLC, No. 3:24-CV-197-B-BN, 2024
WL 2278210, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2024) (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted). “This authority ‘flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket
and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.’” Id. at *2 (quoting
Boudin v. Graystone Inc. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985)); see also Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962).
Plaintiff is not a lawyer and cannot represent Ms. Woods pro se. Despite
admonishments from the Court, he has failed to secure legal representation by an
attorney who is authorized to practice in this court. His failure to either have his
lawyer become admitted or to obtain new counsel prevents this case from
proceeding. Because Plaintiff will not take this basic and necessary step for the case
to progress, the undersigned recommends that this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and follow orders
of the court.
SO RECOMMENDED on March 16, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00373-S-BW Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 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 finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate 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
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 Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:26-cv-00373-S-BW Document 10 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>