IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION DERALD GARRETT § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:24cv136 IAH DENTENTION CENTER § REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Derald Garrett, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit. This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. Discussion The court previously entered a Preliminary Filing Fee Order. A copy of the Order was sent to the address plaintiff provided to the court. The copy of the Order sent to plaintiff was returned to the court with a notation stating plaintiff was no longer at the address he provided. Plaintiff has not supplied the court with a new address or otherwise contacted the court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital,

(5th Cir. 1980). See also McCullough v. Lynaugh,

(5th Cir. 1988). Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d) requires pro se litigants such as plaintiff to provide the court with a physical address and keep the clerk advised in writing of a current address. By not providing the court with his correct address, plaintiff has prevented the court from communicating with him and moving this case towards resolution. He has therefore failed to diligently prosecute this case and, as a result, this case should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Recommendation This case should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Objections Within 14 days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge.

(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association,

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc);

(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72.

SIGNED this 12th day of August, 2024.

A a Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge