United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
TAMEKA S. MINOR, Plaintiff,
CHILD PROTECTIVE AGENCY, MARQUETA LNU, WORKER; ASHLEY BRADFORD, SUPERVISOR; MANAGER, CHILD PROTECTIVE AGENCY; AND HEAD OF CORPORATION, CHILD PROTECTIVE AGENCY; Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY, UNITED STATES
the Honorable United States District Judge Xavier
Report and Recommendation concerns the above-styled cause of
action. All pretrial matters in this case have been referred
to the undersigned for disposition pursuant to Rules CV-72
and 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The
undersigned has authority to enter this recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons
set forth below, it is recommended that Plaintiff s pro
se Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights [#4] be
dismissed for failure to prosecute.
initiated this case on August 6, 2019 by filing a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) based
on an inability to afford court fees and costs [#1]. The
Court granted the motion on August 12, 2019 and engaged in an
initial screening of Plaintiff s proposed Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to determine whether to order
service of the Complaint on Defendants [#3].
Complaint sues the Child Protective Agency and various
individuals who work at the Agency as manager, supervisor,
and case worker. (Compl. [#1-1].) Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants wrongfully accused her of abusing her children and
removed her children from the home without legal basis.
Plaintiff’s Complaint states that Defendants engaged in
an illegal abduction and kidnapping of her children and
asserts claims for a violation of due process pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. [#1-1].) Plaintiff seeks an order
returning her children to her care and custody and $2, 000,
000 in damages for the emotional suffering the actions of
Defendants have caused her.
screening order, the Court identified several deficiencies in
Plaintiff’s Complaint, which could be complete bars to
her claims. (See Order [#3] at 2–5.)
Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a more
definite statement within 21 days or on or before September
2, 2019 to clarify her allegations against Defendants. The
Court listed specific questions for Plaintiff to answer
regarding her allegations. (See Id . at 5.) The
Court also warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with the
Order could result in the dismissal of her claims for failure
to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
date, Plaintiff has not filed the ordered more definite
statement or any other filing in response to the
Court’s Order. Rule 41(b) allows 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). In light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to
this Court’s ordered more definite statement, the
undersigned will recommend that the District Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to prosecute.
Conclusion and Recommendation
considered Plaintiff’s Complaint, the deficiencies
identified therein, the Court’s Order for a more
definite statement, and Plaintiff’s failure to respond,
the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint
be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Instructions for Service and Notice of Right to
United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this
report and recommendation on all parties by either (1)
electronic transmittal to all parties represented by
attorneys registered as a “filing user” with the
clerk of court, or (2) by mailing a copy to those not
registered by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Written objections to this report and recommendation must be
filed within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy of same, unless this time period is
modified by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The party shall file the objections with
the clerk of the court, and serve the objections on all other
parties. A party filing objections must specifically identify
those findings, conclusions or recommendations to which
objections are being made and the basis for such objections;
the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or
general objections. A party’s failure to file written
objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party
from a de novo determination by the district court.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985);
Acuña v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200
F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, failure to file
timely written objections to the proposed findings,