Davis v. Wright et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
BRODRICK EUGENE DAVIS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § 2:25-CV-122-Z-BR
§
NICK WRIGHT, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff Brodrick Eugene Davis, acting pro se and while a prisoner, filed
a Complaint alleging that unknown defendants violated his civil rights. (ECF 4).
On December 18, 2025, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a Notice of
Intent to Proceed if he intended to continue with this case, since it appeared that he had changed
U.S. Bureau of Prisons facilities but had not updated his address. Davis’s deadline for compliance
was January 20, 2026, but he has failed to either comply or otherwise respond to the order. The
Court has given Davis ample opportunity to comply with the Order, yet he has not done so.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order.
Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1988); see FED. R. CIV. P. 41. “This authority [under
Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays
in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir.
1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386 (1962)).
A pro se litigant is not exempt from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and
Case 2:25-cv-00122-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
substantive law. Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981); Edwards v. Harris County
Sheriff's Office, 864 F. Supp. 633, 637 (S.D. Tex. 1994). A pro se litigant who fails to comply with
procedural rules has the burden of establishing excusable neglect, which is a strict standard
requiring proof of more than mere ignorance. Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th
Cir.1988); Birl, 660 F.2d at 593.
Dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) is appropriate here. Davis’s failure to comply
with the Court’s Order appears to reflect an intent to abandon this lawsuit rather than to create
purposeful delay. Regardless, this case cannot proceed without his compliance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge that the Complaint
filed by Brodrick Eugene Davis (ECF 4) be DISMISSED without prejudice.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Findings, Conclusions
and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
ENTERED January 26, 2026.
* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *
Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the
event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is
fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the
signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by
Case 2:25-cv-00122-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the
fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections
with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A
party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds
of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal
conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district
court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS Recovery
Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275,
276–77 (5th Cir. 1988).
Case 2:25-cv-00122-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>