Bryan Jeremy Riley v. Grayson County Health Department, et al.

E.D. Texas

Bryan Jeremy Riley v. Grayson County Health Department, et al.

DecidedNovember 21, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-01040

StatusUnknown

This text of Bryan Jeremy Riley v. Grayson County Health Department, et al. (Bryan Jeremy Riley v. Grayson County Health Department, et al.) 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

Bryan Jeremy Riley v. Grayson County Health Department, et al., (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

BRYAN JEREMY RILEY, § #45201 § § v. § CIVIL NO. 4:25-CV-01040-BD § GRAYSON COUNTY HEALTH § DEPARTMENT, et al. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Bryan Jeremy Riley filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. The action was assigned to me in accordance with the Standing Order Assigning Prisoner Civil Rights Cases Filed in the Sherman Division to a Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 2. Riley consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings. Dkt. 6. On October 14, 2025, the court ordered Riley to pay an initial partial filing fee of $9.83 within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Dkt. 8. He failed to comply with that order and, as such, 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 any order of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Riley 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). It is ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of November, 2025.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge

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

BRYAN JEREMY RILEY, § #45201 § § v. § CIVIL NO. 4:25-CV-01040-BD § GRAYSON COUNTY HEALTH § DEPARTMENT, et al. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Bryan Jeremy Riley filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. The action was assigned to me in accordance with the Standing Order Assigning Prisoner Civil Rights Cases Filed in the Sherman Division to a Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 2. Riley consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings. Dkt. 6. On October 14, 2025, the court ordered Riley to pay an initial partial filing fee of $9.83 within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Dkt. 8. He failed to comply with that order and, as such, 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 any order of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Riley 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). It is ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of November, 2025.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bryan Jeremy Riley v. Grayson County Health Department, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryan-jeremy-riley-v-grayson-county-health-department-et-al-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack