Lassiter v. Red's Barbeque

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MASHIACH C. LASSITER, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-00135-O-BP
§
RED’S BARBEQUE, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 4, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Mashiach C. Lassiter filed a civil complaint in the
Dallas Division, which was recently transferred here and referred to the undersigned for judicial
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3. ECF Nos. 3, 6, 7.
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
Mashiach C. Lassiter is the plaintiff. He names Red’s Barbeque as the sole defendant.
C. 	LEGAL ANALYSIS
To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay the $405 filing and
administrative fees or be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1914, 1915. When Plaintiff filed his complaint, he did not pay the requisite fees or file a
Case 4:26-cv-00135-O Document 10 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
completed IFP application. On February 23, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure this deficiency by
March 9, by either paying $405 to the clerk of Court or filing a complete long-form IFP application.
ECF No. 9. The Court noted that Plaintiff states that he is a “disabled veteran,” but he does not list
a payment of disability benefits on his incomplete IFP application. See ECF No. 4 at 5, 2. The
Court provided Plaintiff a copy of the IFP application form necessary to comply and warned him
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 order expired. To date, Plaintiff has
not complied with the Court’s order, sought an extension of time to do so, or otherwise attempted
to cure his filing deficiency or communicate with the Court about his case. Because Plaintiff has
not paid the requisite fees or obtained permission to proceed IFP, this case is subject to dismissal
for failure to comply with Court orders and for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b).
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s
complaint for failure to comply with Court orders and 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
Case 4:26-cv-00135-O Document 10 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
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.
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).
SIGNED on March 12, 2026.
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00135-O Document 10 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>