Morris v. Cerliano

Filing 13

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 11 Report and Recommendations, (Motion(s) 11 terminated). Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 11/26/24. (jbe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ANTHONY NORMAN MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAXEY CERLIANO,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:23-cv-534-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Anthony Morris, a former inmate in Gregg County Jail proceeding pro
se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendations for disposition.
On October 28, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the
Court dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an
order of the Court. Docket No. 11. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff’s last
known mailing address, but it was returned as undeliverable. Docket No. 12. No
objections have been received. To date, Plaintiff has not advised the Court of his
current mailing address. See Loc. R. CV-11(d) (“A pro se litigant . . . is responsible for
keeping the clerk advised in writing of his or her current physical address.”); Docket
No. 7 at 5 (Plaintiff’s amended complaint including a declaration stating that Plaintiff
has the responsibility to keep the Court informed of his current mailing address).
1

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to
file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and
reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no
objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to
law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
prosecute or to obey an order of the Court.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of November, 2024.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2