Wingfield v. Lilly et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ANTHONY WINGFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN LILLY, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-115-JDK-KNM
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
Case 6:25-cv-00115-JDK-KNM Document 10 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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
Case 6:25-cv-00115-JDK-KNM Document 10 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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 day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9th	January, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00115-JDK-KNM Document 10 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>