Maurice Deman Hall v. Tina M. Metoyer

E.D. Texas

Maurice Deman Hall v. Tina M. Metoyer

DecidedOctober 16, 2025

Docket9:21-cv-00249

StatusUnknown

This text of Maurice Deman Hall v. Tina M. Metoyer (Maurice Deman Hall v. Tina M. Metoyer) 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

Maurice Deman Hall v. Tina M. Metoyer, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MAURICE DEMAN HALL, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:21-CV-249 § TINA M. METOYER, § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Maurice Deman Hall, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit against Tina M. Metoyer. Plaintiff alleges the defendant deprived him of property and used excessive force against him. The court previously entered an order (#64) scheduling a status conference on October 7, 2025. A copy of the order was sent to plaintiff by certified mail. The docket sheet reflects that on that date United States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn convened the status conference at 2:11 p.m. The defendant appeared through counsel. Plaintiff did not appear. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1986). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997). By failing to appear for the status conference, plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and prevented the court from moving the case towards resolution. As a result, this case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is accordingly ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A final judgment shall be entered dismissing this matter. If plaintiff, within 30 days of the date set forth below, notifies the court that he wishes to continue pursuing this case, the court will consider restoring this matter to the court’s active docket.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 16th day of October, 2025.

MARCIA A. CRONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MAURICE DEMAN HALL, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:21-CV-249 § TINA M. METOYER, § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Maurice Deman Hall, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit against Tina M. Metoyer. Plaintiff alleges the defendant deprived him of property and used excessive force against him. The court previously entered an order (#64) scheduling a status conference on October 7, 2025. A copy of the order was sent to plaintiff by certified mail. The docket sheet reflects that on that date United States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn convened the status conference at 2:11 p.m. The defendant appeared through counsel. Plaintiff did not appear. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1986). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997). By failing to appear for the status conference, plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and prevented the court from moving the case towards resolution. As a result, this case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is accordingly ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A final judgment shall be entered dismissing this matter. If plaintiff, within 30 days of the date set forth below, notifies the court that he wishes to continue pursuing this case, the court will consider restoring this matter to the court’s active docket.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 16th day of October, 2025.

MARCIA A. CRONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Maurice Deman Hall v. Tina M. Metoyer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurice-deman-hall-v-tina-m-metoyer-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack