Dasek v. East Texas Treatment Facility
Dasek v. East Texas Treatment Facility
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00495 Joseph Dasek, Plaintiff, V. East Texas Treatment Facility, Defendant.
ORDER Plaintiff Joseph Dasek, a former inmate of the East Texas Treatment Facility in Henderson, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitu- tional rights. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Mag- istrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. Doc. 2. The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to pay the statutory fil- ing fee or seek leave to proceed 7” forma pauperis in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Doc. 4. The magistrate judge also or- dered plaintiff to file an amended complaint setting out a short and plain statement of his claims. Doc. 3. When plaintiff did not respond to these orders, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the court. Doc. 5. A copy of this report was sent to plaintiff at his last known address, but it was returned as undeliverable. To date, plain- tiff has not advised the court of his present mailing address or cur- rent whereabouts. The complaint form which plaintiff filed contains a declaration stating “I understand, if ] am released or transferred, it is my respon- sibility to keep the court informed of my current mailing address and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit. Doc. 1 at 5. See also Local Rule CV-11(d) (“A pro se litigant must provide the Court with a physical address . . . and is responsible for keeping the clerk advised in writing of his or her current physical address.”).
When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
79 F.3d 1415, 1420(5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s re- port, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. The lawsuit is dis- missed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an or- der of the court. So ordered by the court on February 14, 2024. _fLabok BARKER United States District Judge
_2-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown