Sidney Maurice Thompson v. United States of America, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: January 9, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00277
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 09, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

SIDNEY MAURICE THOMPSON, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00277 § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE On December 10, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss Case for Failure to Prosecute” (D.E. 9). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. Instead, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (D.E. 11) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (D.E. 12). Plaintiff had previously been cautioned that he had not satisfied the requirements to proceed IFP. D.E. 4, 6. And the Magistrate Judge had already issued a show cause order due to Plaintiff’s abusive filing of lawsuits and seeking IFP status without proof. Because the new motion to proceed IFP was not accompanied by the necessary proof of financial circumstances, the Magistrate Judge issued his Order (D.E. 13), setting a deadline for the supporting proof of December 24, 2025. To date, no such proof has been filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and

recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 9), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the

findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a cause of action for failure to prosecute). Given Plaintiff’s history of filing vexatious civil actions and weighing all relevant

circumstances, Plaintiff is SANCTIONED $50.00 and is ORDERED to obtain leave of court before filing any further pro se actions in the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiff is also ORDERED to certify in a sworn affidavit that he has paid the $50.00 sanction should he seek leave of court to file any future pro se action in the Southern District of Texas. Judd v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 311 F. App’x 730, 731 (5th Cir. 2009) (Affirming a $500.00

sanction and requiring the plaintiff to obtain leave of court before filing any further civil actions and requiring plaintiff to submit certification). Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that filing any frivolous actions and/or failing to prosecute any further actions in any court in the Southern District of Texas will subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions. ORDERED on January 9, 2026. fel GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3