Brooks v. Texas Health and Human Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
ANTRECE BROOKS, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-1354-O-BP
§
TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN 	§
SERVICES, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 3, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Antrece Brooks filed a civil complaint, and this case
was referred to the undersigned for judicial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special
Order 3. ECF Nos. 1, 3. She also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF
No. 2.
The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are
as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. 	NATURE OF THE CASE
This case is a new civil action.
B. 	PARTIES
Antrece Brooks is the plaintiff. She names “Texas Health and Human Services” as the sole
defendant.
C. 	LEGAL ANALYSIS
To proceed with a civil action in this court, a plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 filing
and administrative fees or be granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. On
December 15, after reviewing Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court determined that it was deficient
Case 4:25-cv-01354-O Document 6 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
because it contained various discrepancies related to Plaintiff’s living and financial circumstances.
ECF No. 5. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the $405.00 filing and administrative fees or
file an amended long-form IFP application that clarifies the discrepancies by December 29. Id.
The Court provided Plaintiff the form necessary to comply and warned her that failure to do so
could result in dismissal of this case without further notice for failure to prosecute. Id.
Rule 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow
orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority
flows from a court’s inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition
of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
629-31 (1962). The deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s order expired. To date,
Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order, sought an extension of time to do so, or otherwise
attempt to cure her outstanding filing deficiency. Because Plaintiff has not paid the requisite fees
or obtained permission to proceed IFP, this case is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with
Court order and for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b).
The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that Chief United States District Judge Reed
O’Connor DISMISS Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of prosecution, without prejudice to being
refiled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties
in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right
to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States
Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14)
days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge
need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a
Case 4:25-cv-01354-O Document 6 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error
or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
It is so ORDERED on January 2, 2026.
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-01354-O Document 6 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>