IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION URIYAH REED §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:24-CV-165 UNKNOWN BADGER, ET AL. § REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Uriyah Reed, a prisoner previously confined at the Gib Lewis Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

. This action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. Discussion On June 21 and 27, 2024, documents mailed to Plaintiff at his last known address, were

returned to the court as undeliverable. Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d) requires pro se litigants to keep the clerk advised in writing of their current address. As of this date, Plaintiff has not provided the court with his current address. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt.,

(5th Cir. 2018); Larson v. Scott,

(5th Cir. 1998). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962); Martinez v. Johnson,

(Sth Cir. 1997). Without a current mailing address, the court is unable to contact Plaintiff or proceed with this action. Therefore, Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Local Rules warrants dismissal without prejudice for want of prosecution. Recommendation This action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Objections Within fourteen 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 fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of 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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc);

(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.P. 72. SIGNED this the 28th day of August, 2024,

CSR ChristineL Stetson UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE