Lombard v. Hindy et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
WILTON LOMBARD, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-0006-P
§
GERALD HINDY, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 5, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Wilton Lombard filed a civil complaint, which was
referred to the undersigned for judicial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order
3. ECF Nos. 1, 4. 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
Wilton Lombard is the plaintiff. He names Gerald Hindy and Assemblies of God Financial
Services 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. When Plaintiff filed his complaint, he filed a long-form IFP application. ECF No. 2.
But the Court determined that it was deficient because Plaintiff did not complete all sections of the
Case 4:26-cv-00006-P Document 9 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
form. On January 6, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure this deficiency within 30 days by either
paying $405 to the clerk of Court or filing a complete amended long-form IFP application. ECF
No. 6. The Court provided Plaintiff a copy of the IFP form necessary to comply and warned him
that failure to do so could 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). 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 cure his deficiency has not yet expired. However, the Court’s
January 6 order, along with the Court’s “Instructions to a Non-Prisoner Pro Se Plaintiff,” both of
which were mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided on his complaint, were recently returned
to the Court as undeliverable. ECF Nos. 7, 8. To date, Plaintiff has not notified the Court of his
new mailing address, which is required, or otherwise attempted to communicate with the Court
about this case. See N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 83.13, 83.14.
Because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, obtained permission to proceed with IFP, or
provided the Court with a proper mailing address, this case is subject to dismissal 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 FED. R. C IV. P. 41(b).
Case 4:26-cv-00006-P Document 9 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
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
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.
It is so ORDERED on February 3, 2026.
______________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00006-P Document 9 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>