Lockwood v. Chilcoat et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TONY LOCKWOOD, 	§
ID # 24004111, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:24-CV-2028-X-BW
§
P CHILCOAT, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Tony Lockwood, proceeding in this action pro se, has failed to
prosecute this lawsuit and follow court orders. The undersigned United States
magistrate judge recommends that, unless Plaintiff comes into compliance during the
14-day period within which he may file objections to this recommendation, the
District Judge should DISMISS this action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b).
On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a handwritten complaint sent from the
Dallas County Jail requesting forms to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt.
No. 4.) He was provided a standard form complaint for § 1983 claims and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered to return them no later than
September 12, 2024. (Dkt. No. 5.) He submitted an amended complaint on August
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full
case management. By Special Order No. 3-354, it was transferred and reassigned to the
undersigned on August 23, 2024. (See Dkt. No. 6.)
Case 3:24-cv-02028-X-BW Document 10 Filed 12/24/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
8, 2024 (Dkt. No. 7), but he has not filed the application to proceed in forma
pauperis or paid the required filing fees.
On November 5, 2025, the Court noted that, according to jail records, Plaintiff
was no longer held in the Dallas County Jail and that he had not updated his address
as required by court rules. (Dkt. No. 8.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice
of intent to proceed with this case by December 3, 2025, or dismissal of this case
would be recommended. (Id.) Plaintiff’s deadline to file a notice of intent to proceed
with this case has passed, and he has not filed a notice or taken any other action
manifesting an intent to proceed with this case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) “authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or a
court order.” Smith v. Resurgent Capital Servs. LP, LLC, No. 3:24-CV-197-B-BN, 2024
WL 2278210, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2024) (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted). “This authority ‘flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket
and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.’” Id. at *2 (quoting
Boudin v. Graystone Inc. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985)); see also Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962).
By failing to comply with court order to pay the filing fees or an application to
proceed in forma pauperis, update his address, or take any other action in this case,
Plaintiff has apparently chosen to abandon this case. His failure to comply with
orders additionally prevents the prevents the case from proceeding. In light of
Case 3:24-cv-02028-X-BW Document 10 Filed 12/24/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
Plaintiff’s failure to take a basic and necessary step to prosecute the case, the Court
finds that sanctions less than dismissal would be futile.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff may, within the 14-day period allowed for objections,
come into compliance and demonstrate an intent to prosecute his lawsuit by either
paying the $405 filing fee or submitting documents necessary for the undersigned to
consider whether in forma pauperis status is appropriate.
If Plaintiff fails to come into compliance within the 14-day period during
which Plaintiff may make objections to this recommendation, the undersigned
recommends that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and follow orders of the court.
SO RECOMMENDED on December 24, 2025.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-02028-X-BW Document 10 Filed 12/24/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 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 finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination 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 Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:24-cv-02028-X-BW Document 10 Filed 12/24/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>