Thompson v. United States of America See Order - DE 16 - pltff must obtain leave of court before filing.

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SIDNEY MAURICE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00277
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On December 10, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his
“Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss Case for Failure to Prosecute” (D.E. 9).
Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s
memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General
Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. Instead, Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint (D.E. 11) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (D.E. 12).
Plaintiff had previously been cautioned that he had not satisfied the requirements to
proceed IFP. D.E. 4, 6. And the Magistrate Judge had already issued a show cause order
due to Plaintiff’s abusive filing of lawsuits and seeking IFP status without proof. Because
the new motion to proceed IFP was not accompanied by the necessary proof of financial
circumstances, the Magistrate Judge issued his Order (D.E. 13), setting a deadline for the
supporting proof of December 24, 2025. To date, no such proof has been filed.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00277 Document 16 Filed 01/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 9), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d
769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a
cause of action for failure to prosecute).
Given Plaintiff’s history of filing vexatious civil actions and weighing all relevant
circumstances, Plaintiff is SANCTIONED $50.00 and is ORDERED to obtain leave of
court before filing any further pro se actions in the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiff is
also ORDERED to certify in a sworn affidavit that he has paid the $50.00 sanction should
he seek leave of court to file any future pro se action in the Southern District of Texas.
Judd v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 311 F. App’x 730, 731 (5th Cir. 2009) (Affirming a $500.00
sanction and requiring the plaintiff to obtain leave of court before filing any further civil
actions and requiring plaintiff to submit certification).
Case 2:25-cv-00277 Document 16 Filed 01/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that filing any frivolous actions and/or failing to
prosecute any further actions in any court in the Southern District of Texas will subject him
to additional and progressively more severe sanctions.
ORDERED on January 9, 2026.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00277 Document 16 Filed 01/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3