Brown v. State of Texas

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANGELO DIVISION
ANTHONY LEE BROWN,
EL’s Trust
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS,
County of Tom Green
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 6:25-CV-00077-H-BU
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff ANTHONY LEE BROWN removed this case to federal court on July 11,
2025, seeking dismissal of a bench warrant issued by a Texas state court. Dkt. No. 1. His
case was then transferred to this Court for resolution. Dkt. No. 15. On November 6, 2025,
the Court received a public correspondence from the “Office of the ANTHONY LEE
BROWN Estate” alleging that Brown has passed away and seeking closure of this action.
Dkt. No. 18. The attached online obituary indicated that Brown passed away on October
26, 2025, but did not identify the sender or a substitute party. Id.
The Court therefore ordered Brown or his legal representative to file a Notice of
Intent by December 12, 2025, indicating (1) the identify and legal authority of the party
submitting the notice, and (2) whether they intended to continue litigation or sought vol-
untary dismissal of Brown’s claims. Dkt. No. 19. The order cautioned the parties that fail-
ure to file the Notice of Intent would lead to dismissal of the case. Id.
Case 6:25-cv-00077-H-BU Document 20 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
Neither Brown nor his legal representative has responded to the Court’s order to file
a Notice of Intent. Without confirmation of intent to proceed, the undersigned is unable to
screen Brown’s claims, and his case cannot be litigated. The undersigned therefore REC-
OMMENDS that the Court DISMISS Brown’s claims without prejudice.
I. RIGHT TO OBJECT
A copy of these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these Find-
ings, Conclusions, and Recommendations must file specific written objections within four-
teen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
the objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magis-
trate judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations where the disputed determina-
tion is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing
before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will
bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of
plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
ORDERED this 15th day of December 2025.
JOHN R. PARKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-00077-H-BU Document 20 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>