Richard Betancourt v. Ana Mendez, Antonio Martinez, Veronica Reyna Garay

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00102
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 29, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

RICHARD BETANCOURT, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00102 § ANA MENDEZ, et al., § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Richard Betancourt, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In his Complaint Plaintiff sues: (1) Ana Mendez, (2) Antonio Martinez; and (3) Veronica Reyna Garay. (D.E. 1). On August 1, 2025, the undersigned issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint on or before September 2, 2025. (D.E. 12). On September 3, 2025, the Court received Plaintiff’s one-page letter which appears to be his response to the August 1 Order. (D.E. 13). Plaintiff’s letter, however, did not comply with the instructions contained in the August 1 Order. On September 29, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, giving Plaintiff an opportunity to file a proper Amended Complaint on or before October 20, 2025 and to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed. (D.E. 14). The Court further warned Plaintiff that his Complaint was deficient and that his failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in the dismissal of this action under Rule 1 / 3 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jd. at 3. Plaintiff has not complied with the September 29 Order by submitting an Amended Complaint nor has he responded in any way. A district court has authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (Sth Cir. 1997) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a cause of action for failure to prosecute). To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the August | Order and September 29 Order by submitting an Amended Complaint or otherwise seeking an extension of time to do so. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to follow court orders and submit an Amended Complaint. He has been previously advised that this action may be dismissed for want of prosecution if he fails to comply with a court order. Dismissal is therefore warranted under these circumstances. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiffs action be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

Respectfully submitted on October 29, 2025.

Julie tk hp on S United States Magistrate Judge

2/3

NOTICE TO PARTIES

The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District

Court for the Southern District of Texas. A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon

grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).

3 / 3