Young v. Reeves et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MIKEL YOUNG, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-0095-P
§
DAVE REEVES, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 30, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Mikel Young filed a civil complaint that was
recently transferred here from the Dallas Division and referred to the undersigned for judicial
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3. ECF Nos. 1, 7, 8.
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
Mikel Young is the plaintiff. He names Dave Reeves, Mark Lyles, Jeff Schenfeld, and
Raymond Bell 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. When Plaintiff filed his complaint, he also filed a long-form IFP application. ECF No.
Case 4:26-cv-00095-P Document 11 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
5. However, the Court determined that it was deficient because Plaintiff did not complete all
sections of the form. ECF No. 10. On January 29, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure this
deficiency within 14 days, by either paying $405 to the clerk of Court or filing a complete long-
form IFP application. Id. The Court mailed Plaintiff a copy of the form necessary to comply. In
addition, the Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply could 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 January 29 order expired on
February 12. To date, Plaintiff has not complied, sought an extension of time to do so, or otherwise
attempted to cure his filing deficiency or communicate with the Court about his case. Because
Plaintiff has not paid the requisite fees or obtained permission to proceed IFP, this case is subject
to dismissal for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b).
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED for lack of
prosecution, without prejudice to being refiled. See F ED . R. CIV . P. 41(b).
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
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
Case 4:26-cv-00095-P Document 11 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
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).
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to
the undersigned for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and is hereby, RETURNED
to the docket of the United States District Judge.
It is so ORDERED on February 17, 2026.
______________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00095-P Document 11 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>