Hall v. Britt et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JERALD ANTHONY HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL BRITT, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-00112-RWS
ORDER
Plaintiff Jerald Hall filed this suit complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional
rights. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On August 13, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 36) be granted and that the case
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Docket No. 45. On
September 12, 2025, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file
objections, 	allowing 	Plaintiff 	60 	additional 	days 	to 	file 	objections 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation and staying the case pending receipt of any such objections. Docket No. 49.
The September 12, 2025 Order was mailed to Plaintiff at the address indicated on the
docket, but it was returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address provided.1 Docket No. 50.
On October 29, 2025, the September 12, 2025 Order was remailed to Plaintiff. After having almost
four extra months to file objections to the August 13, 2025 Report and Recommendation, no
1 Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas
requires that pro se litigants provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for
keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of their current physical address.
Case 5:22-cv-00112-RWS-JBB Document 51 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
objections have been filed. Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de
novo review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the magistrate judge and, except
upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal
conclusions adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th
Cir. 2017).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the Report and Recommendation of the
magistrate judge. After review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation is
correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918
(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”). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Docket No. 45)
is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court and that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket
No. 36) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. It is further
ORDERED that all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED
-AS-MOOT.
.
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:22-cv-00112-RWS-JBB Document 51 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>