Horton v. Unknown Defendant 4:26-cv-268-O

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
GREGORY HORTON, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-00268-O-BP
§
UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 10, 2026, pro se Plaintiff, Gregory Horton, filed a civil complaint, and this case
was referred to the undersigned for judicial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special
Order 3. See ECF Nos. 1, 2.
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
Gregory Horton is the plaintiff. The Court has not been able to discern the names of the
defendants.
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.
Case 4:26-cv-00268-O Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
§§ 1914, 1915. Because Plaintiff had not paid the filing fee or sought permission to proceed IFP,
the Court ordered that he do so by April 6, 2026. ECF No. 4. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff
that failure to timely comply with its order might result in dismissal of this case without further
notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 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 has passed and, to date,
Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order or otherwise attempted to cure his filing
deficiency. Because Plaintiff has not paid the requisite fees, this case is subject to dismissal for
failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b).
The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS without prejudice
Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with a court order. 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.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a
Case 4:26-cv-00268-O Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
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 April 9, 2026.
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00268-O Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>