UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00484 Christopher Breen, Plaintiff, V. D. Fuller et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Christopher Breen, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitu- tional rights. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 2. The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to pay the statutory fil- ing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. By sep- arate order, the magistrate judge directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint containing a short and plain statement of his claims. Doc. 4. When plaintiff failed to comply with those orders, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey a court order. Doc. 5 at 2. A copy of the report was mailed to plaintiff but was returned as undeliverable on March 17, 2025. Doc. 6. The complaint form plaintiff filed contains a declaration stating, “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.” 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, particularly where a litigant

-l-

has been advised of his responsibility to keep a current address with the Court.”). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the report. When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis- fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find- ings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with- out prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey an order of the court. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on October 1, 2025.

— field BARKER United States District Judge

-2-