JERALD ANTHONY HALL v. MICHAEL BRITT, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JERALD ANTHONY HALL, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-00112-RWS § MICHAEL BRITT, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER Plaintiff Jerald Hall filed this suit complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On August 13, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 36) be granted and that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Docket No. 45. On September 12, 2025, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file objections, allowing Plaintiff 60 additional days to file objections to the Report and Recommendation and staying the case pending receipt of any such objections. Docket No. 49.

The September 12, 2025 Order was mailed to Plaintiff at the address indicated on the docket, but it was returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address provided.1 Docket No. 50.

On October 29, 2025, the September 12, 2025 Order was remailed to Plaintiff. After having almost four extra months to file objections to the August 13, 2025 Report and Recommendation, no Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas requires that pro se litigants provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of their current physical address. objections have been filed. Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the magistrate judge and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. After review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation 1s correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Docket No. 45) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court and that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 36) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It is further ORDERED that all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED -AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of January, 2026.

[Dohert LU Lbrpectsr C2.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER ITI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2