Slade Shipping Inc. v. Nex Venture et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:25-cv-04178 Document19_ Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page1of2

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
June 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION
§
Slade Shipping, Inc. d/b/a Slade §
Global, §
§
Plaintiff, § Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-04178
§
V. §
§
Nex Venture, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
§

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

On May 19, 2026, this Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by
attorneys for Plaintiff Slade Shipping, Inc. because Plaintiff failed to
communicate with them and pay their fees. Dkt. 16 at 1-2. In the same order,
this Court noted that it had explicitly warned Plaintiffs representative about
the necessity of retaining counsel because Plaintiff cannot appear pro se. Id.
at 1. In addition, the Court noted that the deadline for serving the defendants
had expired five months ago, without any attempt to serve them. Jd. at 2. The

Court nevertheless gave Plaintiff “one last chance to meet its service

obligations,” ordered Plaintiff to “retain counsel immediately and file proof of

proper service on all defendants by June 26, 2026,” and warned that failure to

meet that deadline “will result in dismissal of all claims.” Jd. at 2.

Case 4:25-cv-04178 Document19_ Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff failed to heed the Court’s warning. The June 26, 2026 deadline
passed without Plaintiff taking action. No counsel has appeared for Plaintiff.
Nor has Plaintiff filed proof that any of the six named defendants was served.

Because Plaintiff has wholly failed to effectuate service, retain counsel,
and comply with this Court’s directives, it is RECOMMENDED that this
action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution and
failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Nottingham v.
Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) for principle that “a district court may dismiss an action sua
sponte if the plaintiff fails to comply with court orders’).

It is further ORDERED that the initial conference scheduled for July
24, 2026 (Dkt. 18) is CANCELED.

The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to file timely objections will preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).

Signed on June 30, 2026, at Houston, Texas.

Y. he

nne Y. Ho tL.
nited States Méegistrate Judge