Anderson v. Munger

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 10 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 7/8/2019. (slo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DAMIEN ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN MUNGER,
Defendant.

§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-175-RWS§ CMC
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER

The Plaintiff Damien Munger filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining
of deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the lawsuit to the United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the
Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
On November 28, 2017, Plaintiff was ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee of $13.80
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Docket No. 8. He received a copy of this order on
November 29, 2017. Docket No. 9. However, Plaintiff never paid the fee, and indeed, he did not
contact the Court in any way after receiving the order.
On April 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending the lawsuit be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 10. A copy of this order was
sent to Plaintiff at his last known address, but it was returned and noted Plaintiff was no longer
there. Docket No. 11.
In filing the complaint, Plaintiff declared, “I understand if I am released or transferred, it
is my responsibility to keep the Court informed of my current mailing address and failure to do so
may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit.” Docket No. 1 at 4. The Court has no duty to locate
litigants, particularly where a litigant has been advised of his responsibility to keep a current

address with the Court. See Jones v. Heart, No. 3:13CV856-HTW-LRA, 2014 WL 1665006, at
*1 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 23, 2014) (The Court “does not locate addresses for service on behalf of
litigants in civil cases.”).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been file, Plaintiff is not
entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and
recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, he is barred from appellate review of
the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District
Court. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge and agrees with the Report of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s
proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the
sound discretion of the judge warrants.’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)).
.
It is accordingly
ORDERED the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 10) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. It is further
ORDERED the statute of limitations is suspended for a period of 90 days following the
date of entry of the final judgment.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of July, 2019.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2