Williams v. Telvista

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Texas
DecidedMay 30, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-00673
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Williams v. Telvista, (N.D. Tex. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

ERNEST WILLIAMS, § PLAINTIFF, § § V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-CV-673-E-BK § TELVISTA, § DEFENDANT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. Upon review, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution. On March 24, 2025, the Court issued a deficiency order requiring Plaintiff to register for electronic filing. Doc. 7. On March 28, 2025, the Court issued a questionnaire requiring Plaintiff to expound on the factual allegations in the complaint. Doc. 8. The Court sua sponte extended the time to comply with both orders. Doc. 11; Doc. 12. The most recent deadline for Plaintiff’s responses was May 15, 2025. As of the date of this recommendation, however, Plaintiff has not answered the questionnaire, nor has he sought an extension of time to do so. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin y. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (Sth Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court’s questionnaire. However, Plaintiff has impliedly refused or declined to do so. As such, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of prosecution. See FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits,” unless otherwise specified).! SO RECOMMENDED on May 30, 2025. Lv 1

E HARRIS TOLIVER UNNEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (Sth Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to object to 14 days). ' Without a response to the questionnaire, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff timely filed this action. Thus, it is unclear whether the higher standard for dismissal with prejudice for want of prosecution would applies. See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (Sth Cir. 1992). That notwithstanding, because there is a clear record of delay by Plaintiff and no lesser sanction will prompt diligent prosecution of this case, the Court should exercise its discretion to dismiss under Rule 41(b), even if limitations may prevent further litigation of all or some of his claims. See Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 441 (Sth Cir. 2016).

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

Related

Larson v. Scott
157 F.3d 1030 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Link v. Wabash Railroad
370 U.S. 626 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Wayne Boudwin v. Graystone Insurance Company, Ltd.
756 F.2d 399 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)
Gemeral Earnest Berry, Jr. v. Cigna/rsi-Cigna
975 F.2d 1188 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)
Jay Nottingham v. Warden Bill Clements Unit
837 F.3d 438 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. Telvista, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-telvista-txnd-2025.