Sampson v. Lyft, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
I AMMAN R. SAMPSON, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O. 4:25-CV-00786
§
L YFT, I NC., 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the issue of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case, which
the Court takes up sua sponte.1 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on February 18, 2025,
and the District Judge referred the case on March 7, 2025. ECF 1; ECF 6. Despite
the U.S. Marshalls Service executing service, Defendant has not appeared in this
case. ECF 5. On October 6, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File an Amended Complaint and ordered him to file it by October 13, 2025. ECF
19. 	Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he moved for entry of
default or default judgment after nearly nine months. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, 55.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) gives the court the power to dismiss
a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Boudwin v.
Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (explaining that 41(b) allows
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 6.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 21, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00786 Document 24 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
for sua sponte dismissal because of a “court’s inherent power to control its docket
and prevent undue delays”). Failure to move for entry of default or otherwise move
a case forward without court intervention constitutes failure to prosecute. 	See
Romero v. Cordero, 787 F. Supp. 3d 789, 797–98 (W.D. Tex. 2025) (noting failure
to prosecute where plaintiff “did nothing on his own to move his case forward for
over two months” until court intervened, but the fact “Court had to move [the] case
forward at nearly every junction” indicated potential “refusal to prosecute”).
Here, dismissal for failure to prosecute under 41(b) is appropriate because
Plaintiff has done little to move the case forward. 	He has not requested entry of
default although Defendant has not appeared for nearly nine months. Further, after
receiving permission to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff failed to do so by the
required deadline. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to advance his case.
Sua sponte dismissal 	for failure to prosecute is permissible 	when the
procedure is fair and the plaintiff had notice of the court’s intention to dismiss and
an opportunity to respond. 	Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 755 F.3d 307, 310
(5th Cir. 2014) (“fairness in this context requires both notice of the court's intention
and an opportunity to respond” (citation omitted)); Anokwuru v. City of Houston,
990 F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir. 2021). The procedure for sua sponte dismissal in this
case is fair because this Memorandum and Recommendation puts Plaintiff on notice
of the Court’s intention and grants Plaintiff 14 days to file an objection and explain
Case 4:25-cv-00786 Document 24 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
why his case should be allowed to proceed. See Anokwuru, 990 F.3d at 967 (plaintiff
that filed objections to magistrate judge’s recommendation undoubtedly had notice
and opportunity to respond before dismissal).
For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
claims be DISMISSED.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on November 20, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-00786 Document 24 Filed on 11/20/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3