Lester Hunter v. Grayson County Sheriff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION LESTER HUNTER, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-1043-RWS-JBB § GRAYSON COUNTY SHERIFF, § § Respondent. § ORDER Petitioner Lester Hunter, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered petition for the writ of habeas corpus complaining of his confinement in Grayson County Jail. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

After reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation on January 12, 2026, recommending that the application for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Docket No. 8 at 2. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, but was returned as undeliverable. Docket Nos. 9–10. To date, Petitioner has not contacted the Court to provide an updated mailing address. Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d) requires that “[a] pro se litigant must provide the Court with a physical address.” And a pro se litigant “is responsible for keeping the [Clerk of Court] advised in writing of his or her current physical address.” E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-11(d). The Court has no duty to locate litigants “who do not keep the Court apprised of their current address.” Ashlock v. Kelley, No. 5:17-cv-209, 2019 WL 2578628, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 24, 2019).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation have been filed, Petitioner is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court.

Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 8) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of March, 2026.

[Dohert LU Lbrpectsr C2.

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