Pierce v. Blanton et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
TY BRETT PIERCE, #2499789, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Case No. 6:25-cv-389-JDK-JDL
§
WILLIAM BLANTON, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Ty Brett Pierce, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice proceeding pro se, brought these civil rights claims in a previously-filed
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which the Court found them improperly
joined and severed them into this action. 	The instant case was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On November 24, 2025, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that
Plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff had failed to
comply with the Court’s order to satisfy the filing fee requirement and to amend the
complaint to cure identified deficiencies. 	Docket No. 5. 	A copy of this Report was
mailed to Plaintiff, but it was returned as undeliverable. Docket No. 6. Plaintiff did
not file objections within the prescribed period, and his failure to keep the Court
apprised of his current address constitutes a violation of this Court’s rules and of his
general obligation to take the steps necessary to prosecute his claims. See Martinez-
Case 6:25-cv-00389-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Reyes v. United States, 2016 WL 8740494 *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2016) (explaining that
“litigants, including prisoners, bear the burden of filing notice of a change of address
in such a way that will bring attention of the court to address change.”) (quoting
Theede v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999)); Local Rule CV-
11(d) (“A pro se litigant must provide the court with a physical address (i.e., a post
office box is not acceptable) and is responsible for keeping the clerk advised in writing
of his or her current physical address.”).
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days 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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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 object in the prescribed period. 	The Court therefore
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and
reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. 	See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S.
918 (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
Case 6:25-cv-00389-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 5) as the findings of this Court. 	It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16th	January, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00389-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>