IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

WILLIAM JOSEPH RETTSTATT, § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00188-RWS Plaintiff, §

§ v. §

§ FNU LYNN, KELLY CRISP, TTPD § POLICE CHIEF, TEXARKANA TX § POLICE DEPARTMENT, § § Defendants. §

ORDER Plaintiff William Rettstatt, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned civil action complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff was ordered to pay the statutory filing fee or to submit a certified inmate trust account data sheet in support of his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. When he did not comply with this order, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Docket No. 8 (“Report and Recommendation”). A copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address, return receipt requested, but was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not notified the Court of his present address or current whereabouts. The lawsuit form which Plaintiff filed contains a declaration reading as follows: “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). Because no objections have been received, the Plaintiffis barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas,

(Sth Cir. 2017). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (holding that 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. 8) 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 or to obey an order of the Court.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of May, 2021.

[Doher t LU Lbrpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2