Nuno v. Cyrus

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ABILENE DIVISION
DAVID G. NUNO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MILEY CYRUS,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-00199-H-BU
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff David G. Nuno initiated this civil action against Defendant Miley Cyrus,
alleging that she used his life story in her music. Dkt. No. 1. The case was referred to the
undersigned under Special Order 3 and Nuno has not consented to the undersigned exer-
cising this Court’s full jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 2.
For reasons discussed below, the undersigned finds that Nuno has failed to comply
with the Court’s Order to pay the required filing fee or file an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP). In addition, Nuno has failed to keep the Court informed of his current
address. Because Nuno has failed to comply with the Court’s orders, the undersigned REC-
OMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Nuno’s claims for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with a court order.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Nuno first filed his claim on October 3, 2025. Dkt. No. 1. In its Notice and
Case 1:25-cv-00199-H-BU Document 13 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
Instruction to Pro Se Party, the undersigned instructed Nuno that he must notify the Court
in writing if his address changed during the pendency of his case. Dkt. No. 3. The under-
signed also warned Nuno that his claims could be dismissed if he failed to keep the Court
apprised of his current address. Id.
Nuno’s Complaint was brief, stating only that he sought money from Miley Cyrus
for using his history in her music. Dkt. No. 1. He subsequently filed a Motion seeking to
add Billy Ray Cyrus as an additional defendant. Dkt. No. 6. However, Nuno never paid the
filing fee or filed an application to proceed IFP.1 Thus, on December 15, 2025, the under-
signed entered a Notice of Deficiency ordering Nuno to either file an IFP application or
pay the required filing fee by January 16, 2026. Dkt. No. 7.
The Notice of Deficiency Order was mailed to the return address listed on Nuno’s
findings.2 Nonetheless, the Notice was returned as undeliverable on January 2, 2026.3 Dkt.
No. 9. At the same time, Nuno has sent three filings to the Court with the same return
address. Dkt. Nos. 10–12. Nuno has not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed IFP.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an
action sua sponte for failure to comply with court orders or for failure to prosecute. Not-
tingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016); McCullough v.
1 Because Nuno has not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed IFP, it is appropriate to dismiss his pending
Motion to Amend.
2 The listed address in California is not a residence; instead, the address belongs to either a private law
office or bail bond program.
3 A public correspondence that the Clerk mailed back to Nuno on December 9, 2025, was also returned as
undeliverable on December 29, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 5, 8.
Case 1:25-cv-00199-H-BU Document 13 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court’s inherent
power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962). A Rule 41(b) dismissal may be with
or without prejudice. Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir. 1996). A dismissal with
prejudice is appropriate only where a litigant’s acts or omissions are “the result of purpose-
ful delay or contumaciousness and the record reflects that the district court employed lesser
sanctions before dismissing the action [with prejudice].” Id.
III. ANALYSIS
As demonstrated above, the Court ordered Nuno to maintain a current address with
the Court. Nuno’s failure to maintain a current address and comply with a court order sup-
port involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b). See Lewis v. Hardy, 248 F. App’x 589, 593
n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“[T]he failure of a pro se litigant to notify the district
court of an address change may be considered by the district court as an additional cause
for dismissal for failure to prosecute.”). However, nothing in the record indicates that Nuno
has acted with bad faith or with the intent to cause a purposeful delay. For this reason, the
undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice to him refiling his
claims.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS
Nuno’s claims without prejudice. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that Nuno’s
pending Motion to Amend be DENIED as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-00199-H-BU Document 13 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
V. RIGHT TO OBJECT
A copy of these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these Find-
ings, Conclusions, and Recommendations must file specific written objections within four-
teen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
the objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magis-
trate judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations where the disputed determina-
tion 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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
ORDERED this 9th day of February 2026.
JOHN R. PARKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00199-H-BU Document 13 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>