Poffenbarger v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JEFFREY POFFENBARGER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00022
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Plaintiff Jeffrey Poffenbarger, appearing pro se, has filed this federal question case
against PennyMac Loan Services, LLC. (D.E. 1).
In an Order Adopting Memorandum and Recommendation issued on April 2, 2026,
Plaintiff was ordered by the Court to pay the $405.00 filing fee within twenty (20) days of
the date of the Order or to voluntarily dismiss this case. (D.E. 18). Plaintiff was warned
that failure to comply with the Court’s Order in a timely manner may result in his case
being dismissed for want of prosecution. Id. Plaintiff did not timely pay the filing fee. On
May 12, 2026, the Court issued to Plaintiff an Order to Show Cause within twenty (20)
days as to why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (D.E. 22).
Plaintiff has not responded to said Order. On May 14, 2026, Plaintiff failed to appear at
an Initial Pretrial Conference in this matter.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00022 Document 23 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
A district court has authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution or for failure
to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d
769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a
cause of action for failure to prosecute). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the April
2 Order (D.E. 18) or the May 12 Order (D.E. 22). Plaintiff has been previously advised
that this action may be dismissed for want of prosecution if he fails to comply with the
Court’s Order to pay the filing fee in a timely manner. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s failure to
appear at the Initial Pretrial Conference Hearing indicates his abandonment of this lawsuit.
Dismissal is therefore warranted under these circumstances.
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff’s action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Respectfully submitted on June 3, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00022 Document 23 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Case 2:26-cv-00022 Document 23 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3