SLOOTH Inc et al v. Kickz et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
SLOOTH, INC. 	§
PLAINTIFF, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-35-P
§
KICKZ, ET AL. 	§
DEFENDANTS. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF
SLOOTH, INC.’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN COUNSEL
On February 2, 2026, the Court ordered that Plaintiff SLOOTH, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) “shall, no later
than February 16, 2026, obtain counsel” and warned that “[f]ailure to timely comply with this order will
result in the undersigned recommending dismissal of this action.” (Order Requiring Plaintiff SLOOTH,
Inc. to Obtain Counsel (“First Order”) at 1 (emphasis in the original).) On February 12, 2026, an unsigned
notice of attorney appearance was filed by Deatria Norfleet on behalf of Plaintiff. (Notice of Attorney
Appearance at 2.) The Court struck the notice because Deatria Norfleet failed to sign the document as
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule” or Rules”) and the Local Rules of the Northern
District of Texas. (February 12th Notice of Deficiency at 1.) The next day, Plaintiff requested a thirty-day
extension to obtain counsel. (Plaintiff SLOOTH, Inc.’s Motion For 30-Day Extension Of Time To Secure
Counsel at 1.) The Court partially granted the motion and gave Plaintiff until March 2, 2026, to obtain
counsel. (See February 13th Electronic Order.) Further, the Court warned that “pursuant to the Court's
Order Requiring Plaintiff to Obtain Counsel [9], the Court will recommend dismissal of this action without
further notice if this extended deadline is not met.” (Id.) As of the date of this Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Orders.
Rule 41(b) authorizes a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or failure to
comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998); McCullough v. Lynaugh,
835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Winegarner v. Cinemark, USA, 2009 WL 3199508, *2 (October 5,
Case 4:26-cv-00035-P Document 14 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2009)). Although the language of rule 41(b) specifically addresses dismissal pursuant to a motion brought
by a defendant, the Fifth Circuit has recognized that a court’s authority to dismiss a case sua sponte under
rule 41(b) flows from its inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition
of pending cases. 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)).
In the instant case, Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to obtain counsel. 	The fact that
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se does not excuse Plaintiff from following the orders of the Court. The Court
therefore RECOMMENDS dismissal of this case without prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(b). See Lowe v.
Eltan, B.V., No. 9:05-CV-38, 2013 WL 1196536, at *8 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2013) (“When a corporation is
unrepresented by counsel, the court may properly dismiss its claims.”).
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF
FAILURE TO OBJECT
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 Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1428-29 (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).
Case 4:26-cv-00035-P Document 14 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until March 19,
2026, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed
and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days
of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to
the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby
is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.
SIGNED March 5, 2026.
_________________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00035-P Document 14 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>