Wing et al v. American Airlines, Inc.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
HEATHER WING, et al., 	§
§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-0245-O-BP
§
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 6, 2026, pro se Plaintiffs Heather and Brent Wing filed a civil complaint and
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the Eastern District of Texas, which were
recently transferred here and referred to the undersigned for judicial screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3. ECF Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7.
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
Heather and Brent Wing are the plaintiffs. They name American Airlines, Inc. as the sole
defendant.
C. 	LEGAL ANALYSIS
To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay the $405 filing and
Case 4:26-cv-00245-O Document 14 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
administrative fees or be granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. On
March 5, after reviewing Plaintiffs’ IFP application, the Court determined that it was deficient
because it was incomplete and not signed. ECF No. 9. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to either pay
the $405 filing and administrative fees for this action or file a signed, complete long-form IFP
application by March 26. Id. The Court provided Plaintiffs the form necessary to comply and
warned them that failure to do so could result in dismissal of this case without prejudice for failure
to prosecute, without further notice. 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 Plaintiffs to comply with the Court’s March 5 order expired. To date,
Plaintiffs have not complied or sought an extension of time to do so. Moreover, it appears that
Plaintiffs have not received any recent notices or orders issued by the Court. Four court documents,
including the Court’s March 5 order, were recently returned to the clerk of Court as undeliverable.
ECF Nos. 10-13. All of the return envelopes indicate that Plaintiffs’ residence is now vacant and
are marked “Return to Sender” and “Unable to Forward.” Id. Additionally, to date, Plaintiffs have
not updated their mailing address with the Court, which is required. See N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 83.13,
83.14.
Because Plaintiffs have not paid the requisite fees or obtained permission to proceed IFP,
and the Court is otherwise unable to communicate with them about their case, this case is subject
to dismissal for failure to comply with Court orders and for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b).
Case 4:26-cv-00245-O Document 14 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack
of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order, without prejudice to being refiled. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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).
SIGNED on March 31, 2026.
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00245-O Document 14 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>