Tarver v. Wofford et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JC TARVER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-179-RAW-JAR
)
DARRELL WOFFORD, 	)
State Trooper; 	)
BILL BAZE, Judge; and 	)
LAURA SUMNER, Clerk, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on a review for Plaintiff’s compliance
with this Court’s Order directing that the filing fee be paid or an in forma pauperis
application be filed entered July 22, 2025. 	This case was referred to the
undersigned by United States District Judge John F. Heil, III, who presides over
this case.
Plaintiff initiated this case acting pro se on June 2, 2025. 	The Clerk of
this Court entered an Order directing that Plaintiff pay the required filing for or
a motion seeking in forma pauperis status by June 9, 2025. 	Plaintiff failed to
comply with this directive.
As a result of Plaintiff’s deficiency, this Court entered an Order to Show
Cause on July 22, 2025 directing Plaintiff to show cause in writing by July 31,
2025 as to why the case should not be reassigned to a United States District
Judge and a recommendation be entered that the case be dismissed for the
failure to pay the filing fee. 	The Order forewarned that:
6:25-cv-00179-RAW-JAR Document 10 Filed in ED/OK on 04/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
THE FAILURE TO FILE THE SHOW CAUSE REPORT IN WRITING
BY THE DATE SPECIFIED SHALL RESULT IN THE ENTRY OF
FINDINGS AND A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION BE
DISMISSED AND THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE TO A UNITED
STATES 	DISTRCT 	JUDGE 	WITHOUT 	FURTHER 	NOTICE 	OR
HEARING.
Doc. Ent. No. 6 (emphasis in original).
To date, Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee or file the show cause report
as ordered. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. 	“A district
court undoubtedly has discretion to sanction a party for failing to prosecute or
defend a case, or for failing to comply with local or federal procedural rules.”
AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233,
1236 (10th Cir. 2009) quoting Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir.
2002). 	Indeed, the Tenth Circuit “ha[s] consistently interpreted Rule 41(b) to
permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a [party's] failure to prosecute.”
Huggins v. Supreme Court of the United States, 480 F. App'x 915, 916-17 (10th
Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted).
When dismissing a case without prejudice, “a district court may, without
abusing its discretion, enter such an order without attention to any particular
procedures.” 	Id. quoting Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d
1158, 	1162 	(10th 	Cir. 	2007). 	Since 	Plaintiff 	has 	failed 	to 	complete 	the
prerequisite act of paying the filing fee to commence and continue this action
and 	has 	failed 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	Order 	of 	the 	Court, 	this 	Court 	would
recommend that the case be dismissed without prejudice without further notice
6:25-cv-00179-RAW-JAR Document 10 Filed in ED/OK on 04/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
or hearing since Plaintiff was already provided notice of the prior Order to Show
Cause.
IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNDERSIGNED that this action
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling based upon Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute the case and the failure to comply with this Court’s Order.
Plaintiff is given fourteen (14) days from the date of the service of these
Findings and Recommendation to file any objections to them with the Clerk of
the Court. 	Any such objection shall be limited to ten (10) pages in length. 	The
failure to object to the Findings and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days
will preclude their review. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of April, 2026.
______________________________________
JASON A. ROBERTSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:25-cv-00179-RAW-JAR Document 10 Filed in ED/OK on 04/21/26 Page 3 of 3