Quincy Nelson v. Billy Thompson, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS QUINCY NELSON, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:20-CV-48 § BILLY THOMPSON, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Quincy Nelson, a prisoner previously confined at the Gib Lewis Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Billy Thompson, Steven Edwards, Clinton Ard, Muhammad Tohummy, Hillary Matthews, Terry Andrews, Charlotte Mattox, and Erika Pate.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.

On January 23, 2026, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). To date, the parties have not filed objections to the report.

The court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct.

Because the statute of limitations would bar future litigation of Plaintiff’s claims, a dismissal would act as a dismissal with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and if lesser sanctions would not serve the interests of justice. Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 766 (Sth Cir. 2014).

In this case, Plaintiff has not exhibited a clear record of contumacious conduct, but he has failed to provide the court with his current address.

The court has considered imposing lesser sanctions and found them inadequate to address the current situation. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the imposition of monetary sanctions is almost certainly futile. Further, this case would remain suspended in limbo, unable to proceed, so long as Plaintiff fails to provide the court and the defendants with his current address. A dismissal is the only sanction available in this instance, but the court will lessen the sanction by allowing Plaintiff to reopen the case by providing within thirty days of the date the judgment is entered.

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#92) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 11th day of February, 2026.

MARCIA A.CRONE- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE