Alex Gustavo Fernandez v. John Peter Smith Hospital

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00963
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

ALEX GUSTAVO FERNANDEZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-963-P § JOHN PETER SMITH HOSPITAL, § § Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 29, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Alex Gustavo Fernandez (“Fernandez”) filed a Complaint against John Peter Smith Hospital (“Defendant”). In an order dated September 4, 2025, Fernandez was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [doc. 9]. On October 17, 2025, after reviewing Fernandez’s Complaint, the Court informed Fernandez of various deficiencies in his Complaint and ordered him to file an Amended Complaint no later than October 31, 2025. (Order Directing Plaintiff To File A Form Amended Complaint (“Order to File Am. Compl.”) at 1.) In that Order the Court cautioned Fernandez that “Failure to timely file an amended complaint could result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice for lack of prosecution without further notice.” (Order to File Am. Compl. at 1 (emphasis in the original).) As of the date of this Order, Fernandez has wholly failed to comply with the Court’s October 17 Order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“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). 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, Fernandez has been given ample opportunity to file an Amended

Complaint. The fact that Fernandez is proceeding pro se does not excuse Fernandez from following the orders of the Court. Based on Fernandez’s failure to file his Amended Complaint, Fernandez has failed to comply with the Court’s October 17 Order. Accordingly, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that this case should DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b). RECOMMENDATION For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court’s Order. 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 recommendations 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 (Sth 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). ORDER Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until November 19, 2025, 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 November 5, 2025. Cc) 7? rho. ATYD STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE