Harris v. ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MARCUS HARRIS, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-01345-O-BP
§
ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 	§
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 1, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Marcus Harris filed a complaint against Defendants
ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“ACE”), Chubb Insurance Company (“Chubb”),
and Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (“NRF”), asserting claims of defamation, defamation per se,
abuse of process, negligence and gross negligence, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. ECF No. 1. In that complaint, he asserts that “[j]urisdiction is proper under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are completely
diverse.” Id. at 2.
However, as the Court explained by order dated March 19, 2026, Harris has not
affirmatively and distinctly alleged facts demonstrating that the Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case. ECF No. 14. In particular, the Court noted that Harris has not sufficiently
alleged facts concerning his own citizenship or that of any other party. Id. In the absence of these
facts, the Court cannot conclude that complete diversity of citizenship between the parties exists.
This omission is critical because diversity of citizenship is a requirement for the Court to
exercise diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). And here, because Harris does not allege
Case 4:25-cv-01345-O Document 15 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
federal question jurisdiction, his factual omissions also leave the Court unable to determine
whether it has any subject-matter jurisdiction at all. Without subject-matter jurisdiction, this case
cannot proceed. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001)
In an attempt to remedy the deficiency in Harris’ complaint, the Court ordered him to file
a response containing enough facts to establish that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over
the case. ECF No. 14. The Court ordered Harris to file that response on or before April 2, 2026,
and specifically cautioned him that if he did not do so, that failure could result in a recommendation
that Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor dismiss the case without prejudice. Id.
The filing deadline has now come and gone, and dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.
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). Here, despite the Court specifically cautioning Harris about the potential consequences
of his non-compliance, Harris has nonetheless not complied with the Court’s order, sought an
extension of time to do so, or otherwise attempted to prosecute his own case.
Because of these circumstances, and because the Court cannot proceed in this case without
being satisfied that it has subject-matter jurisdiction, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Chief
Judge O’Connor DISMISS without prejudice Harris’ case for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with the Court’s order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties
in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions,
and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with
Case 4:25-cv-01345-O Document 15 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). To be specific, an objection
must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis
for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 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 6 court, except
upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the
time to file objections to 14 days)
SIGNED on April 6, 2026.
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
'ill 	tt. 	~ 	~-Hal R. Ray, Jr.
1
Case 4:25-cv-01345-O Document 15 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>