Lopez v. Ramseur

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
SCARLETT LOPEZ, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-00012-O-BP
§
DAKOTA RAMSEUR, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 7, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Scarlett Lopez filed a civil complaint and application
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and this case was referred to the undersigned for judicial
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3. ECF Nos. 1-3.
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
Plaintiff Scarlett Lopez is the plaintiff. She names Dakota Ramseur as the sole defendant.
C. 	LEGAL ANALYSIS
To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 filing
and administrative fees or be granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. On
January 13, after reviewing Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court determined that it was deficient
because she did not use the required long-form IFP application. ECF No. 5. The Court ordered
Plaintiff to either pay the $405.00 filing and administrative fees or file a complete long-form IFP
Case 4:26-cv-00012-O Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
application by January 27. Id. The Court provided Plaintiff the form necessary to comply and
warned her that failure to do so could result in dismissal of this case without further notice for
failure to prosecute. 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 Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s January 13 order expired. To date,
Plaintiff has not complied or sought an extension of time to do so. In fact, the Court’s order was
recently returned as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not updated her mailing address with the
Court, which is required. See ECF No. 6; see also N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 83.13, 83.14. Because Plaintiff
has not paid the requisite fees or obtained permission to proceed IFP, and the Court is otherwise
unable to communicate with Plaintiff, this case is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with
Court orders and for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b).
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED
for lack of prosecution, 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.
Case 4:26-cv-00012-O Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
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).
It is so ORDERED on February 5, 2026.
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
ill 	tt. 	~It•
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
Case 4:26-cv-00012-O Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>