Malion v. ATT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
PEGGY MALION, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-00018-O-BP
§
ATT, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Peggy Malion initiated this action by filing a complaint on January 8, 2026.
ECF No. 1. The case was automatically referred to the undersigned pursuant to Special Order 3.
ECF No. 3. That same day, Malion filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis that the Court
granted on February 5, 2026. ECF Nos. 2, 7. On February 25, 2026, the Court ordered Malion to
file an amended complaint on or before March 18, 2026, that sets forth claims upon which relief
may be granted, alleges the Court’s jurisdiction, and otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. ECF No. 8. In that Order, the Court cautioned Malion that her failure to comply
by the deadline could result in the dismissal of her case without prejudice. Id. Malion did not
comply by the deadline, and as of this date, she still has not.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for
failure to prosecute or follow court orders. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.
1988). This authority flows from a court’s inherent power to manage its docket. Boudwin v.
Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370
U.S. 626 (1962)). And the Court's authority under Rule 41(b) is not diluted by a party proceeding
pro se, as “[t]he right of self-representation does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant
Case 4:26-cv-00018-O Document 9 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
rules of procedural and substantive law.” Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991)
(quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. Nov. 1981)). A Rule 41(b) dismissal may be
with or without prejudice. Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir. 1996). However, dismissals
with prejudice for want of prosecution are considered “an extreme sanction.” Id. Accordingly, the
Court should employ such dismissals only where a litigant’s acts or omissions are “the result of
purposeful delay or contumaciousness and the record reflects that the district court employed lesser
sanctions before dismissing the action [with prejudice].” Id.
Despite a clear warning that noncompliance could result in dismissal of her case, Malion
has not complied with the Court’s order. Because Malion’s noncompliance does not appear to stem
from 	purposeful 	delay 	or 	contumaciousness, 	a dismissal 	without prejudice is 	warranted.
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Chief United States District Judge Reed
O’Connor DISMISS this case without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute
or follow court orders.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties
in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions,
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)(2). To be specific, an objection must
identify the particular finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for
the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 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
Case 4:26-cv-00018-O Document 9 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the
time to file objections to 14 days).
SIGNED on March 23, 2026.
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
J;ki 	It.~ 	~-Hal R. Ray, Jr. 	!
Case 4:26-cv-00018-O Document 9 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>