Scott v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
NATASHA SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:26-cv-00155-P-BP
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS INC.,
Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 12, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Natasha Scott filed a complaint against
Experian Information Solutions Inc. ECF No. 1. On February 13, 2026, the Court
ordered Scott to file an amended pleading entitled “Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint” in compliance with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a) and the Local Civil Rules by March 6, 2026. ECF No. 7 at 1. She did
not do so. On March 17, 2026, the Court again ordered Scott to file an amended
pleading entitled “Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” by March 31, 2026. ECF No.
9. In both orders, the Court warned Scott that failure to comply with the orders may
result in a recommendation that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute the case or to obey
court orders. As of today, Scott has not filed an amended complaint and therefore has
not complied with either of the Court’s orders.
Case 4:26-cv-00155-P Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
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). To date,
Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s orders, sought an extension of time to do
so, or otherwise attempted to prosecute her case.
Accordingly, this case is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order 	and 	for 	lack 	of 	prosecution 	under 	Rule 	41(b). 	The 	undersigned
RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Mark T. Pittman DISMISS
Scott’s case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the
Court’s orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). 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 findings, conclusions, 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
Case 4:26-cv-00155-P Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district 6 court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.
United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), modified by
statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections
to 14 days).
SIGNED on April 6, 2026.
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00155-P Document 12 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>