Strong v. Collier et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ABILENE DIVISION
DEVON SEAN STRONG,
Instirutional ID No. 0l 724485
SID No. 01581442
Plaintiff,
No. 1:24-CV-00015-H
MICHAEL W. COLLIER, eral.,
Defcndants
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THE TATES MA TE JUDG
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions' and a
recommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and repeated failure to obey orders of this Court.
Dkt. No. 43. Plaintifffiled untimely objections. Dkt. No. 44. As explained below, the
Court overrules Plaintiffs objections. And, after appropriate review, the Court accepts and
adopts the Magistrate Judge's FCR. Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs complaint without
prejudice. The Court will permit Plaintiff to reopen this case only if he timely and fully
complies with the orders of the Magistrate Judge in conducting judicial screening of his
casc
l. Background
Plaintiffbrought this case against various defendants regarding incidents that
occurred during his confinement at the Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of
Crimi-nal Justice (TDCJ). See Dkt. Nos. 1, 15. The undersigned transferred this case to the
Magistrate Judge for judicial screening under 28 U.S.C. $ 1915 and to develop the factual
Case 1:24-cv-00015-H Document 46 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

basis of Plainriffs complaint. Dkt. No. 19. The Court directed the Magistrate Judge to
advise Plaintiffof the availabiliry of the Magistrate Judge to exercise jurisdiction to conduct
any or all proceedings in this case under 28 U.S.C. $ 636(c), including conducting the trial
or ordering the entry ofjudgment. The Court further ordered that ifany pafiy failed to
consent to the jurisdiction ofthe Magistrate Judge, the case should be transferred back to the
docket of this Court along with proposed findings offact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for disposition of the case. Id. The record reflects that Plaintiff did not
consent to have the Magistrate Judge exercise jurisdiction undel Section 636(b). Indeed,
Plaintiff has repeatedly objected to the Magistrate Judge's involvement in this case. See Dkt.
No. 43 at 1-2.
Pursuant to this Court's customary practice for screening its high volume of prisoner
civil-rights cases, rhe Magistrate Judge endeavored to develop the facrual basis of Plaintiffs
claims by ordering relevant authenticated records and issuing a questionnafe, which
Plaintiff completed and retumed. See Dkt. No. 26. In the meantime, Plaintiffsought to
supplement his claims multiple times. Sea Dkt. No. 34 (describing Plaintiffs attempts to
supplement and the Court's efforts to obtain a complete amended complaint incorporating
all of Plaintiffs claims). Eventually, Plaintiff filed a document that the Magistrate Judge
liberally construed to assert new retaliation claims against individuals at the Allred Unit,
where Plaintiffwas then confined, and ordered Plaintiffto respond to a second
questionnaire. ,See Dkt. No. 37. But Plaintiffrefused to comply. See Dkt. No. 43 at 3'
The FCR recommends dismissal under Rule 41(b) for three reasons: (1) Plaintiffs
failure to provide the Court with the details of his retaliation claim, which constitutes a
failure to prosecute, (2) Plaintiffs refusal to complete the questionnaire and appropriately
2
Case 1:24-cv-00015-H Document 46 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

respond to the Show Cause Order violates two of this Court's orders, and (3) Plaintiffs
indication that he will not comply with the Magisuate Judge's future orderc. See id. at2-3.
In short, the Magisffate Judge concludes that "[e]ach of these teasons standing alone is
justification for dismissing [Plaintiffs] claims. But collectively they frustrate, if not make
impossible, the Court's ability to discharge its statutory obligation to screen his claims." Id.
at 3.
2. Discussion
"The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72@)(3); see 28 U.S.C.
$ 636(b)(1). In contrast, the district judge reviews any unobjected-to findings, conclusions,
and recommendations for plain error.
A. Plaintiffs objections are untimely.
The FCR was entered on June 13, 2025. Dkt. No. 43. Thus, Plaintiffs objections
were due no later than June 27 , 2025. Sae 28 U.S.C. $ 636OX1) (2017); Fed. R. Civ P.
72(b). Plaintiffdid not speciry the date he delivered the objections to prison officials for
mailing. SeeDkt.No.44;Cooperv.Brookshire,70F.3d377,379(5thCir. 1995)(findingthat
prisoner's pro se pleading may be deemed "filed" as ofthe date he deposited it in the prison
mail system). But he dated his objections July 7 , 2025. See Dkt. No. 44 at 43. And the
letter attached is dated July 8, 2025. see id. at M. Thus, Plaintiffs objections were drafted
at least 1 1 days after the deadline. As a result, the Court need only review the FCR for plain
error. After an independent review, the Court finds no plain error in the FCR. Thus, the
Court accepts and adopts the FCR and dismisses Plaintiffs complaint without prejudice for
failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
3
Case 1:24-cv-00015-H Document 46 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

B. PlaintifPs objections do not show that the FCR is incorrect.
Additionally, even if Plaintiffs objections were timely, the Court would ovemrle
them. Indeed, after conducting a de novo review, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's
findings, conclusions and recommendations are correct. Ftst, Plaintiffdid refuse to comply
with the Magistrate Judge's Order to complete a second questionna[e, and he has
unequivocally stated that he will not comply with the Magistrate Judge's orders. But
Plaintiffs excuses for his refusal are not sufticient.
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiffdoes not consent to proceed before the
Magistrate Judge as provided in 28 U.S.C. $ 636(c). Plaintiffis enritled to withhold his
consent without adverse substantive consequences, and the Court will protect the
voluntariness of that decision. But he is not entitled to dictate to the Court how its docket
should be managed. It is well established that a district court has inherent power to conffol
its docket. Llnited statesv. cotomb,4l9F.3d292,299 (sth Cir.2005). Thus, the Court may
still reassign this case to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. 0 636(b) for purposes of
preliminary screening or the management of other pretrial matters. As a resuit, Plaintiffs
objection to the temporary reassignment of this case to the Magistrate Judge is ovemrled.
Plaintiff essentially complains that he did not consent to have the Magistrate Judge
exercise jurisdiction over his claims, and he expressly opposes it. In support of his
argument, he notes that his refusal to consent is due to his yearslong experience with
another Magistrate Judge with whom he is dissatisfied. Plaintiffcomplains that he did not
complete the second questionnaire because it pertained to sexual harassment and retaliation
claims that he has filed in another case before the Wichita Falls Division of the United
States District Court for the Nolthern District of Texas. See No. 7:24-CV-00153-O.
I
Case 1:24-cv-00015-H Document 46 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

In short, the record reflects that Piaintiff received multiple opportunities to
participate in his case and still failed-indeed refused-to do so. Thus, the Court ovemrles
the objections and accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation ofthe
United States Magisuate Judge. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs complaint without
prejudice for under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4l(b) for failure to prosecute and
repeated failure to obey an order of this Court. All reliefnot expressly granted, and any
pending motions are denied.
Finally, in the event Plaintiffwishes to proceed with his claims in this case, he may
f,le a motion to reopen this case within 30 days.r However, the Court admonishes Plaintiff
that his case will be transferred to the Magistrate Judge to complete judicial screening of his
case and he will be required to timely and fully comply with any and all orders of the Court.
If Plaintiff fails to timely f,rle a motion to reopen, he may refile his claims in a new civil-
rights complaint, but he will be required to pay the filing fee of $405 or file an application to
proceed in fotma paupeis with a certificate of his inmate trust account'
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
So ordered onlanuary 7\ ,2026.
JAMES SLEY HENDRIX
UNITED TATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I The Court notes that Plaintiffasserts that he did not complete thc second questionnaire, in part, because it
pertained to sexual harassment and retaliation claims occurring at the Allred Unit, and which he has raised in
inother case before the Wichita Falls Division of the United States District Coun for the Northem District of
Texas. See Dkt. No. 44 at 2i No.7:24-CV-00153-O. Thus, the coun finds that if Plaintiffdoes move to
reopen this case, the Magistrate Judge should consider whether the second questionnaire is necessary to
conduct screening of Plaintiffs Robertson Unit claims
5
Case 1:24-cv-00015-H Document 46 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>