Young v. Wheeler et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-2008-S-BW
§
ALAN WHEELER, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Court should DISMISS
this civil rights action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the Court.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 30, 2025, the Court received correspondence from Plaintiff
Christopher Young, appearing pro se, that has been construed as a federal civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Dkt. No. 3.) On October 31, 2025, the
Court entered a Notice of Deficiency and Order requiring Young, within 30 days, to
complete and return a form Civil Rights Complaint that was provided to him if he
intended to pursue relief under § 1983. (Dkt. No. 5.) The Court also ordered Young
to either pay the required filing and administrative fees or complete and file an
application to proceed in forma paupers that was provided to him. (Id.)
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred to the
undersigned magistrate judge for full case management. (See Dkt. No. 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-02008-S-BW Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
Young’s deadline to submit an amended complaint and to either pay the filing
fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis has passed, and he has not
taken any action to comply with the Court’s order. In fact, Young has filed anything
else since initiating this action that would manifest an intent to proceed with the
case. On October 30, 2025, the papers mailed to Young upon initiation of the
lawsuit were returned undelivered with a notation that Young had moved and left no
forwarding address. (Dkt. No. 4.)
II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes the district
court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with [a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or] a court order.” Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C.,
905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018). 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). Further, a court’s authority under Rule 41(b) is not diluted merely because a
party proceeds pro se, as “[t]he right of self-representation does not exempt a party
from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Wright v.
LBA Hospitality, 754 F. App’x 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2019).
Young has failed to comply with the Court’s October 31 order requiring him
to file an amended complaint and either pay the necessary filing fee or submit an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Nor has he filed anything else in this case
since his correspondence that prompted the Court to open this case. By not
Case 3:25-cv-02008-S-BW Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
complying with the Court’s order or otherwise showing he intends to proceed with
this case, Young prevents this action from proceeding and has failed to prosecute his
lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court should exercise its inherent power to prevent undue
delays in the disposition of pending cases and dismiss this action without prejudice
under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and follow court orders.
III. RECOMMENDATION
This action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow court orders.
SO RECOMMENDED on December 5, 2025.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02008-S-BW Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report 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 factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-02008-S-BW Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>