Archer v. Grayson County Health Department

E.D. Texas

Archer v. Grayson County Health Department

DecidedJuly 29, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00619

StatusUnknown

This text of Archer v. Grayson County Health Department (Archer v. Grayson County Health Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archer v. Grayson County Health Department, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

JAMES ARCHER, #83701 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25cv619 § GRAYSON COUNTY HEALTH § DEPARTMENT, ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff James Archer filed a handwritten civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was assigned to the undersigned in accordance with the Standing Order Assigning Prisoner Civil Rights Cases Filed in the Sherman Division to a Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #2). Plaintiff consented to have a magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case. (Dkt. #4). On June 16, 2025, the court ordered Plaintiff, within thirty days, to complete the standard civil rights form and submit it to the court and to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a certified in forma pauperis data sheet reporting his trust fund activities for the last six months. (Dkt. #3). As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with any portion of the Order; thus, he has failed to prosecute his case. The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court; appellate review is only for abuse of that discretion. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. ISD, 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also dismiss an action sua sponte when necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of a case. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court may dismiss an action for failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply with a court order. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s Order. Therefore, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER It is accordingly ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

JAMES ARCHER, #83701 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25cv619 § GRAYSON COUNTY HEALTH § DEPARTMENT, ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff James Archer filed a handwritten civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was assigned to the undersigned in accordance with the Standing Order Assigning Prisoner Civil Rights Cases Filed in the Sherman Division to a Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #2). Plaintiff consented to have a magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case. (Dkt. #4). On June 16, 2025, the court ordered Plaintiff, within thirty days, to complete the standard civil rights form and submit it to the court and to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a certified in forma pauperis data sheet reporting his trust fund activities for the last six months. (Dkt. #3). As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with any portion of the Order; thus, he has failed to prosecute his case. The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court; appellate review is only for abuse of that discretion. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. ISD, 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also dismiss an action sua sponte when necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of a case. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court may dismiss an action for failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply with a court order. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s Order. Therefore, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER It is accordingly ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Archer v. Grayson County Health Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archer-v-grayson-county-health-department-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack