FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

HAL R. RAY, JR., Magistrate Judge.

On October 10, 2019, this case was removed from state court by Defendant Walmart Corporate Office, which Defendant asserts is properly named Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff, Terry Tucker Carr, initiated this action by filing an original petition in the 348th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. Id. This case was automatically referred to the undersigned pursuant to Special Order 3 on October 10, 2019. ECF No. 5.

By Order dated October 21, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by November 4, 2019, clarifying which entity Plaintiff intended to sue in this case, and ordered Defendant to amend its Notice of Removal within fourteen days after Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to clarify the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court. See ECF No. 7. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as ordered. By Order dated November 14, 2019, the Court again ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order might result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders. ECF No. 8. In response, Plaintiff filed a list of names of certain persons whose addresses were in Arlington and Dallas, Texas. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff's filing did not include any facts or claims that provide a basis for relief. Plaintiff thus did not file an amended complaint as previously ordered.

In light of the Court's numerous extensions of time for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint, and the Court's providing Plaintiff warning that failure to file an amended complaint or to comply with court orders may result in dismissal, and the record as a whole, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O'Connor dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders.

A copy of this Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).