Saturn v. Austin Bergstrom International Airport et al

Filing 14

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #13 Motion to Dismiss filed by BAE Systems, #9 Motion to Dismiss filed by Intel Corp., #1 Complaint filed by Johnny Saturn, #5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Target, #10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by HEB.. Signed by Judge Susan Hightower. (dm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JOHNNY SATURN,
Plaintiff
v.
AUSTIN BERGSTROM
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, et al.,
Defendants

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 1:20-CV-01176-LY-SH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Plaintiff Johnny Saturn’s Amended Complaint, filed December 1, 2020
(Dkt. 3); Defendant Target Corporation’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, filed January 26, 2021
(Dkt. 5); Defendant Intel Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), filed
February 19, 2021 (Dkt. 9); Defendant H-E-B, LP’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, filed
February 19, 2021 (Dkt. 10); and Defendant BAE Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6), filed February 24, 2021 (Dkt. 13). The District Court
referred all pending and future motions in this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the
Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
I.

Background

On January 21, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit either the filing fee of $402 or a
completed application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. Dkt. 4. The Court also
warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order could result in dismissal for want of
prosecution. Id.

1

Plaintiff failed to timely submit a filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. A
district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court
order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127
(5th Cir. 1988). Because Plaintiff failed to abide by a Court Order and to prosecute his case, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that this case be dismissed.1
II.

Recommendation

The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Johnny Saturn’s case
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) and DISMISS AS MOOT the Motions to Dismiss filed
by Defendants Target Corporation’s (Dkt. 5), Intel Corporation (Dkt. 9), H-E-B, LP (Dkt. 10), and
BAE Systems, Inc. (Dkt. 13).
III.

Warnings

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections
must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made.
The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v.
United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen
(14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo
review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and,
except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to
proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C.

1

Plaintiff has appeared in this Court before and thus had the opportunity to become familiar with its
procedures. See Saturn v. Austin Bergstrom Int’l Airport, 1:20-cv-00442-LY (W.D. Tex. May 18, 2020)
(dismissing case as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)).

2

§ 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED on February 25, 2021.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3