Young v. Lyles et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MIKEL YOUNG, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-00158-O-BP
§
MARK LYLES, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 15, 2026, Plaintiff Mikel Young, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint in
the Dallas Division, which was subsequently transferred here and referred to the undersigned for
judicial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3. See ECF Nos. 3, 7, 8.
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
Mikel Young (“Plaintiff”) is the plaintiff. Plaintiff names Mark Lyles, Dave Reeves, and
Jeff Schenfeld as the three defendants.
C. 	LEGAL ANALYSIS
To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay the $405 filing and
administrative fees or be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1914, 1915. After reviewing Plaintiff’s IFP application and supporting affidavit, the Court
Case 4:26-cv-00158-O Document 11 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
determined that Plaintiff has sufficient financial resources to pay the $405.00 filing and
administrative fees for this action. See ECF No. 10. In turn, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay
$405.00 to the Clerk of Court by March 4, 2026. Id. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that
failure to timely comply with its order may result in dismissal of this case without further notice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 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
attempted to cure his outstanding filing deficiency. Because Plaintiff has not paid the requisite
fees, this case is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of
prosecution under Rule 41(b).
RECOMMENDATION
The 	undersigned 	therefore 	RECOMMENDS 	that 	the 	Court 	DISMISS 	Plaintiff’s
complaint for lack of prosecution or failure to obey a court order, 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
Case 4:26-cv-00158-O Document 11 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
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
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).
SIGNED on March 9, 2026.
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
Case 4:26-cv-00158-O Document 11 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>