UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00486 Secial Heath, Plaintiff, v. Timisha Propps, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Secial Heath, proceeding pro se, filed this civil-rights lawsuit against defendant on December 20, 2024. Doc. 1. This case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to

(b). Doc. 2. On December 26, 2024, the magistrate judge is- sued a report recommending that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Doc. 3. A copy of the report was mailed to plaintiff at his listed address, but the report was returned as undeliverable. Doc. 4. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the report. The complaint form plaintiff filed contains a declaration stat- ing: “I understand . . . 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.” Doc. 1 at 5. The Local Rules similarly state that 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.” E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11(d); see also Anderson v. Munger, No. 5:17- cv-00175,

, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 8, 2019) (“The Court has no duty to locate litigants ....”). 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,

(5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s re- port, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court

-l-

accepts its findings and recommendation. Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdic- tion. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on April 30, 2025.

j/ CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-