Johnson v. Gregg County Judicial Courts

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SADRICK BEVARD JOHNSON, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:26-CV-094-E-BW
§
GREGG COUNTY JUDICIAL 	§
COURTS, 	§
Defendant. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The undersigned magistrate judge recommends that this action be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) based on Plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute and follow court orders.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 13, 2026, Plaintiff Sadrick Bevard Johnson, proceeding pro se in
this action, submitted a form complaint naming the Gregg County Judicial Courts as
a defendant. (Dkt. No. 3.) Johnson did not pay the filing fee for a civil action, nor
did he file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
On January 14, the undersigned entered a Notice of Deficiency and Order
instructing Johnson to either pay the $405.00 filing fees or complete and submit an
application to proceed IFP within 21 days from the date of the order. (Dkt. No. 4.)
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 3:26-cv-00094-E-BW Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
The Clerk of Court included a copy of the form IFP application with the order sent
to Johnson at the address he provided when he filed this action. (See Dkt. No. 4-1.)
Johnson’s deadline to either pay the filing fee or submit the completed IFP
application has passed, and he has done neither of these things. Additionally, on
January 27, the standard Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party that was sent to
Johnson at the address he provided was returned undelivered. (Dkt. No. 5.)
Johnson has not provided any updated address.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
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).
Johnson’s failure to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed IFP
prevents this case from progressing beyond the initial filing of his complaint.
Additionally, because Johnsons has not provided the Court with an updated address,
the Court is unable to provide any additional notice to Johnson or otherwise advance
Case 3:26-cv-00094-E-BW Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
this case. For these reasons, this action should be dismissed without prejudice under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should dismiss this case without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) for failure to prosecute and follow court orders.
SO RECOMMENDED on February 6, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00094-E-BW Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 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); F ED . R. C IV. 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 3:26-cv-00094-E-BW Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>