Kirkman Bey v. American Airlines Group Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
ELIJAH KIRKMAN BEY, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-01452-O-BP
§
AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC, 	§
et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 17, 2025, Plaintiff Elijha Kirkman Bey, proceeding pro se, filed a civil
complaint in the Dallas Division, which was subsequently transferred here and referred to the
undersigned for judicial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3. See ECF
Nos. 3, 5, 6.
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
Elijah Kirkman Bey (“Plaintiff”) is the plaintiff. Although Elijah Stanley Kirkman
(“Kirkman”) is listed as a named plaintiff on the amended complaint, it is unclear whether Plaintiff
and Kirkman are the same person. Regardless, because Kirkman did not sign the original or
amended complaints, the Court does not consider him to be a proper party to this action at this
Case 4:25-cv-01452-O Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Plaintiff names “American Airlines Group Inc.” and “American
Airlines Inc.” as 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.
§§ 1914, 1915. After reviewing Plaintiff’s IFP application and supporting affidavit, the Court
determined that Plaintiff has sufficient financial resources to pay the $405 filing and administrative
fees for this action. See ECF No. 11. In turn, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay $405 to the Clerk
of Court by February 20, 2026. Id. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that failure to timely
comply with its order may 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 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 outstanding 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).
RECOMMENDATION
The 	undersigned 	therefore 	RECOMMENDS 	that 	the 	Court 	DISMISS 	Plaintiff’s
complaint for lack of prosecution or failure to obey a court order, without prejudice to being refiled.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Case 4:25-cv-01452-O Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
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
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 February 24, 2026.
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
Case 4:25-cv-01452-O Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>