Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Session v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security — magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute

Reported / Citable

Case
Darnay L. Session, Sr. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.
Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Judge
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
Date Decided
August 12, 2026
Docket No.
4:26-cv-00923-O-BP
Topics
Failure to Prosecute; Filing Fees; In Forma Pauperis; Rule 41(b)

Background

Pro se plaintiff Darnay L. Session, Sr. filed a civil complaint in the court’s Dallas Division on July 21, 2026, naming the U.S. Department of Homeland Security DFW Airport, Lawanda Hale, and the Texas Department of Public Safety as defendants.

On July 27, Magistrate Judge Brian McKay ordered Session to pay the $405 filing and administrative fee or submit a complete long-form application to proceed in forma pauperis within fourteen days. Judge McKay also transferred the case to the Fort Worth Division that day. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr. for judicial screening on July 28.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Ray recommended that the district court dismiss the complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). This was a findings, conclusions, and recommendation—not a final dismissal order.

Session’s August 10 deadline passed without payment of the required fees, submission of a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis, or another attempt to cure the filing deficiency. Because the prior order expressly warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, the magistrate judge concluded that the case was subject to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.

Key Takeaways

  • A civil plaintiff must pay the required filing and administrative fees or obtain permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
  • Rule 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with a court order.
  • The recommended dismissal was without prejudice, leaving the complaint eligible to be refiled.

Why It Matters

The recommendation illustrates that even at the outset of litigation, failure to address basic filing requirements after an explicit warning can end a case before the court reaches the merits.

The parties had fourteen days after service to file specific written objections. Any timely objections would require the district judge to review the challenged portions de novo before deciding whether to adopt the recommendation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top