Robinson v. B

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EFERM ANTHONY ROBINSON, JR., §
#91611, §
PLAINTIFF, §
§
V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-CV-3050-D-BK
§
COURTNEY B., §
DEFENDANT. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se case was referred to the
United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a
recommended disposition. As detailed below, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order.
It has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff is no longer confined at the Hunt County
Jail.1 The orders mailed to his jail address were returned as undeliverable and he has failed to
inform the Court of his current address. Doc. 9; Doc. 10. On November 18, 2025, shortly after
the complaint was filed, the Court notified Plaintiff of the requirement to keep the Court
informed of his change of address or his case may be dismissed. See Doc. 7, Filing Fee Order
(notifying the plaintiff of the responsibility to inform the Court of any change of address and that
failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute or follow a court
1 The Hunt County Jail inmate locator is available at Hunt County Sheriff Booking (last accessed
on Dec. 17, 2025).
Case 3:25-cv-03050-D-BK Document 12 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
order). The Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party filed on November 7, 2025, included the
same warning. Doc. 2.
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. 1998). “This authority 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., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
As indicated, Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of his current address as
required by the Court’s filing fee order, and the Court need not delay disposition of this case
until Plaintiff complies with that requirement. Thus, this action should be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of prosecution.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits,”
unless otherwise specified).
SO RECOMMENDED on December 19, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-03050-D-BK Document 12 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
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). 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
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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to object
to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-03050-D-BK Document 12 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>