Franklin v. Hawkins

Jul 21, 2026
4:25-cv-00663

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Robert Leon Franklin, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On April 24, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that the instant lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff failed to notify the Court of his mailing address or current whereabouts. Docket No. 11. A copy of the report and recommendation was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address, but was returned undeliverable and marked, “Inmate not in custody, released on 2/10/2026.” Docket No. 12 at 1. To date, Plaintiff has not advised the Court of his current 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 is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. 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-RWS, 2019 WL 2578628, at *1 (E.D. Tex., June 24, 2019).

As of this date of this Order, no objections have been filed with respect to the April 24, 2026 report and recommendation. Because no objections have been filed, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Court of the magistrate judge’s 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. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court reviewed the pleadings in this case and the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and determines that the report and recommendation is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 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.“). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. It is further

ORDERED that any motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED-AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of July, 2026.

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE