Antoine v. Silva, 4:24-cv-00030

Plaintiff Austin Cole Antoine filed suit over a motor vehicle collision in Reeves County, Texas, alleging negligence and vicarious liability against multiple defendants (Brian Silva, Vega Oilfield, Halliburton, Double P. Trucking).
Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution due to plaintiff’s repeated missed deadlines and tardy disclosures/responses.
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Fannin, who issued a Report and Recommendation on June 10, 2025, advising denial of the motion to dismiss.
Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation within the permitted timeframe.
The District Court reviewed the record for clear error because no timely objections were filed, per Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court found that, while plaintiff’s conduct was problematic, it did not rise to a level warranting dismissal at this time, but issued a warning that further noncompliance may result in such sanction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute	Plaintiff argued that prosecution delays were not egregious or willful and that prosecution was still ongoing	Defendants argued plaintiff’s repeated delays and missed deadlines showed lack of prosecution meriting dismissal	Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding delays problematic but not yet worthy of dismissal; lesser sanctions and a warning were appropriate
Whether a lesser sanction is sufficient under the circumstances	Plaintiff suggested any issues could be remedied without dismissal	Defendants pressed for case-ending sanction due to continued disorganization	Court held that a lesser sanction (warning) was appropriate rather than immediate dismissal
Standard for dismissal for want of prosecution	Argued by implication that standards for contumacious conduct, not present here, were not met	Defendants argued plaintiff’s actions met standard for dismissal	Court found no contumacious conduct or willful disobedience of court orders; mere delay was insufficient
Review standard when no objection to magistrate recommendation is filed	N/A	N/A	Court conducted clear error review and found none, adopting the recommendation in full

McNeal v. Papason, 842 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1988) (Recognizes dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate only in cases of willful disobedience or persistent failure to prosecute)
In re Deepwater Horizon, [citation="805 F. App'x 262"] (5th Cir. 2020) (Defines "contumacious conduct" and addresses when dismissal is appropriate for failure to prosecute)
John v. Louisiana, 828 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1987) (Discusses "stubborn resistance to authority" as standard for contumacious conduct warranting dismissal)