Holloway v. Gregg County et al

Filing 25

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 23 Report and Recommendations, (Motion(s) 23 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
WILLIAM STEPHAN HOLLOWAY,
JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGG COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:23-cv-560-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff William S. Holloway, a former inmate within the Gregg County Jail,
proceeding pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for
disposition.
On November 5, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the
Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and that Plainitff’’s lawsuit
be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to timely refile. Docket No. 23. A
copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff’s last-known address but was returned as
“undeliverable.” Docket No. 24. No objections have been received. Plaintiff has failed
to file an updated mailing address or otherwise communicate with the Court in any
way. 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. 8 at 5
1

(Plaintiff’s amended complaint including a declaration stating that Plaintiff has the
responsibility to keep the Court informed of his current mailing address).
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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. 23) as the findings of this Court.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
(Docket No. 18) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of November, 2024.

2

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE