Stewart v. LoveLace Payne LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
JACQUELINE DENISE STEWART, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-1205-P
§
LOVELACE PAYNE LLC, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 27, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Jacqueline Denise Stewart filed a civil complaint,
and this case was referred to the undersigned for judicial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Special Order 3. ECF Nos. 1, 2. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. 	NATURE OF THE CASE
This case is a new civil action.
B. 	PARTIES
Jacqueline Denise Stewart is the plaintiff. She names LoveLace Payne LLC; John Payne;
Ross Pasekoff; Garrett Thompson; and Rose Pasekoff as defendants.
C. 	LEGAL ANALYSIS
To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay the $405 filing and
administrative fees or be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). See 28 U.S.C. §§
1914, 1915. After reviewing Plaintiff’s amended IFP applications, the Court determined that she
has sufficient financial resources to pay the $405 filing and administrative fees for this action. See
Case 4:25-cv-01205-P Document 9 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
ECF No. 8. On December 3, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay $405 to the clerk of Court by
December 17th. Id. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply with its
order may result in dismissal of this case without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). Id.
Rule 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow
orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); see F ED. R. CIV .
P. 41(b). 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). The deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s order
expired. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order or otherwise attempted to cure
her filing deficiency. Because Plaintiff has not paid the requisite fees, this case is subject to
dismissal for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b).
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED for lack of
prosecution, without prejudice to being refiled. See F ED . R. CIV . P. 41(b).
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties
in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right
to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States
Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days
after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need
only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s
Case 4:25-cv-01205-P Document 9 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a
proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error
or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to
the undersigned for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and is hereby, RETURNED
to the docket of the United States District Judge.
Signed December 31, 2025.
______________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-01205-P Document 9 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>