Anthony Wingfield v. Warden Lilly, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ANTHONY WINGFIELD, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-115-JDK-KNM § WARDEN LILLY, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Anthony Wingfield, proceeding pro se, filed the filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit against officials of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On October 17, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the above-styled civil action be dismissed. Docket No. 8. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address but was returned with the notation that mail sent to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable and that Plaintiff had been discharged. Docket No. 9. TDCJ records show that Plaintiff was released on parole on September 18, 2025. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not advised the Court of his current mailing address. His complaint states “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.” Docket No. 1 at 5. Local Rule CV-11(d), moreover, states that a pro se litigant must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. Despite these obligations, Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his current address and has not filed any objections to the Report.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (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. 8) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any motions pending in this case are DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the administrator of the Three Strikes List for the Eastern District of Texas.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of January, 2026.

G5, J. Hom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE