Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Leo T. Samuel III filed his complaint on April 29, 2026. The magistrate judge later identified deficiencies, including that the complaint did not identify a basis for federal jurisdiction or state a claim entitling Samuel to relief.
The court ordered Samuel to cure those deficiencies and pay the $405 filing and administrative fee. Samuel paid the fee on June 25 but did not amend his complaint. After a second order gave him until July 20 to comply and expressly warned that noncompliance could lead to a dismissal recommendation, Samuel neither amended nor otherwise communicated with the court.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge dismiss the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
The recommendation explained that Rule 41(b) permits involuntary dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or obey a court order, and that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate after Samuel disregarded repeated directives and warnings. Because Samuel had not cured the pleading defects, he had not shown jurisdiction or stated a claim for relief.
Key Takeaways
- This document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final dismissal order by the district judge.
- Paying the filing fee did not satisfy the orders requiring Samuel to amend his deficient complaint.
- The recommended dismissal is without prejudice and rests on Rule 41(b).
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that a pro se plaintiff may face Rule 41(b) dismissal when repeated opportunities and explicit warnings do not result in a compliant pleading. The parties had 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.