IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

STEPHEN L. DARDEN, #58146, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-182-JDK-JDL § GREGG COUNTY JAIL, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Stephen L. Darden, an inmate confined within the Gregg County Jail proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to

alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On November 12, 2025, Judge Love issued a Report (Docket No. 17) recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 13) be granted, and that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last-known address, with an acknowledgment card. The docket reflects that the mail was returned to the Court as “undeliverable” (Docket No. 18) with a notation that Plaintiff is no longer at the jail. However, to date, Plaintiff has filed neither objections to the Report nor a notice of a change of address. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court informed of his current physical address. See Shah v. Novelis, No. 23-40231,

, at *5 (5th Cir. Apr. 23, 2024) (“But pro se plaintiffs are obligated to keep the court apprised of their physical address.”). This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not file any objections. The Court therefore reviews the

Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case,

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 17) as the opinion of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 13) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Any motions pending in this case are DENIED as moot. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of December, 2025. C5. A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE