Spears v. Tanner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WILLIAM SPEARS, §
#0915632, §
PETITIONER, §
§
V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-CV-2336-B-BK
§
ELMER TANNER, §
RESPONDENT. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United
States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a
recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon review, this action should be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a Court order and for want of prosecution.
On October 14, 2025, the Court issued a second deficiency order, advising Petitioner that,
insofar as he sought to file a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he must file
a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the appropriate form and pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 8. See N.D. Tex. L.R. 5.4 and Misc. Ord.
13 (requiring petitions for writ of habeas corpus on the court-approved form); N.D. Tex. Misc.
Ord. 14 (requiring motions to proceed in forma pauperis on the court-approved form); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914 (requiring $5.00 filing fee for writs of habeas corpus). The deadline for Petitioner’s
response was November 12, 2025. As of the date of this recommendation, however, Petitioner
has not responded to the Court’s order, nor has he sought an extension of time to do so.
Case 3:25-cv-02336-B-BK Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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). “This authority flows from the court’s
inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending
cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
Petitioner has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court’s deficiency order.
He has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, 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 December 5, 2025.
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 (5th Cir.
1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to object
to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-02336-B-BK Document 9 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>