Robinson v. Nutt et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation. This civil action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. All pending motions are denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 11/12/16. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
WINDELL ROBINSON

§

v.

§

SHERIFF RAY NUTT, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv236

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Windell Robinson, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights in the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. This Court referred the case 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.
Orders directing payment of the filing fee and for Robinson to file an amended complaint
were sent to Robinson at his place of incarceration, but were returned with the notation that he had
been released. Robinson subsequently sent in a change of address, and the orders were remailed to
him by certified mail. However, the mail was again returned as unclaimed. To date, Robinson has
not notified the Court of his mailing address or current whereabouts. The complaint form contains
a paragraph advising plaintiffs it is their responsibility to inform the Court of any change of address
and failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the case.
On September 27, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the lawsuit
be disismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Report was sent to Robinson’s most
recent known address by certified mail and the return card shows that it was signed for by an
individual named Hubert Robinson. Neither Windell Robinson nor Hubert Robinson have contacted
the Court and no objections have been filed; accordingly, Robinson is barred from de novo review
1

by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds
of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile
Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”) It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 18) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to prosecute. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12 day of November, 2016.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2