Turner v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WALTER L. TURNER, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:24-CV-1674-E-BW
§
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 	§
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et 	§
al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Court should DISMISS
this pro se action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for
failure to prosecute or follow orders of the Court.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Walter L. Turner, proceeding pro se in this action, filed a complaint
against Defendants Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),
Department of Veterans Affairs, Linda Cosey, and Herman Jones on July 1, 2024.
(Dkt. No. 3.) He alleged that Defendants together interfered with his civil and
constitutional rights to employment with the federal government free from
harassment, disparate, or unfair treatment. (See id. at 1.) He alleges that Cosey,
Herman, and the Department of Veterans Affairs precluded him from interviewing
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full
case management. By Special Order No. 3-354, it was transferred and reassigned to the
undersigned on August 23, 2024. (See Dkt. No. 9.)
Case 3:24-cv-01674-E-BW Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
for an open position, lied to him about why he was not hired after two interviews,
and then sought to fire Plaintiff after he was hired. (See id.) He further alleges that
the EEOC’s processes and personnel were biased against him. (See id. at 2.)
Because Turner is proceeding in forma pauperis in this case (see Dkt. Nos. 4,
7), his complaint is subject to judicial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). On
November 4, 2025, the undersigned issued a Magistrate Judge’s Questionnaire to
Turner to clarify his allegations and claims and ordered him to complete and return
the questionnaire by November 25, 2025. (Dkt. No. 10.) Although late, Turner’s
responses to most of the questionnaire were received on December 3. (Dkt. No. 13.)
After reviewing Turner’s responses, the undersigned issued a Second Magistrate
Judge’s Questionnaire on December 17, seeking information omitted from the first
questionnaire necessary to issuance of summonses and clarification of potentially
new claim raised in the response to the first questionnaire. (Dkt. No. 14.) Turner
was ordered to return his responses by January 7, 2026, and the undersigned warned
him that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to
prosecute. (Dkt. No. 14 at 1.)
On January 8, 2026, the clerk of court received a single page from the second
questionnaire, on which Turner wrote that his cognitive skills had deteriorated to the
extent that he was unable to complete the questionnaire without the assistance of
counsel. (Dkt. No. 15.) He also stated that documents he saved after his wrongful
termination in 2018 were completely destroyed in a car fire. (Id.) He further wrote
Case 3:24-cv-01674-E-BW Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
that he was unable to prepare the documents necessary to pursue this case, ending
his writing, “Goodbye.” (Dkt. No. 15 at 1.)
II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes the district
court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with [a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or] a court order.” Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C.,
905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018). 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). Further, a court’s authority under Rule 41(b) is not diluted merely because a
party proceeds pro se, as “[t]he right of self-representation does not exempt a party
from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Wright v.
LBA Hospitality, 754 F. App’x 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2019).
Here, dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate in light of Turner’s stated
inability to prosecute his lawsuit. The Court has determined that he does not qualify
for the appointment of counsel (see Dkt. No. 8), and he has stated that he lacks the
ability to pursue this case. The undersigned has twice attempted to obtain the basic
information that would enable the Court to conduct judicial screening on his claims,
but he has manifested an intent to discontinue pursuit of this action.
Case 3:24-cv-01674-E-BW Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
III. RECOMMENDATION
This action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) for failure to prosecute.
SO RECOMMENDED on January 14, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the
magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:24-cv-01674-E-BW Document 16 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>