1

 See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SUNDAY EGBULONU, : No. 4:CV-05-1501

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. : (Magistrate Judge Smyser)

:

COUNSEL THOMPSON, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

November 21, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

The plaintiff, Sunday Egbulonu (“Plaintiff” or “Egbulonu”), a federal

prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute, Allenwood,

Pennsylvania (“FCI- Allenwood”), proceeding pro se, initiated this Bivens action1

by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania on July 28, 2005. (Rec. Doc. 1).

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser for

preliminary review. On October 24, 2005, Magistrate Judge Smyser issued a

Report and Recommendation within which he concludes that the complaint should

Case 4:05-cv-01501-JEJ Document 15 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 5
2

be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and that the case be closed. 

(Rep. & Rec. at 7). 

Objections to the Magistrate’s Report were due on November 9, 2005 and to

date none have been filed. This matter is now ripe for disposition. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

When no objections are made to a magistrate’s report, the district court is

not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge’s report before accepting it. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). According to the Third Circuit,

however, “the better practice is to afford some level of review to dispositive legal

issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.

1987). When a district court accepts a magistrate judge’s report, the report

becomes the judgment of the court. Id. 

DISCUSSION:

We initially note that the docket reflects that on October 27, 2005 and on

November 3, 2005 the Magistrate Judge’s report was returned as undeliverable to

Plaintiff. (Rec. Docs. 12-13). Further inspection into the Federal Bureau of

Prisons revealed that Plaintiff was released on August 5, 2005. In addition, the

Clerks office informed the Court that Clinton County prison records indicate that

on August 29, 2005, Plaintiff was released to Homeland Security. Therefore, as of

Case 4:05-cv-01501-JEJ Document 15 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 5
3

at least August 29, 2005, Plaintiff’s address changed, yet he never advised the

Court of his new address. 

The Standing Practice Order in pro se cases states, in pertinent part, that:

A pro se plaintiff has the affirmative obligation to keep the court

informed of his or her address. Should such address change in the

course of this litigation, the plaintiff shall immediately inform the

court of such change, in writing. If the court is unable to

communicate with the plaintiff because the plaintiff has failed to notify

the court of his or her address, the plaintiff will be deemed to have

abandoned the lawsuit.

Rec. Doc. 4 at 3-4 (emphasis added). In accordance with our Standing Practice

Order, as Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his updated address, Plaintiff is

deemed to have abandoned this lawsuit. 

In addition, it is notable that our review of this case confirms Magistrate

Judge Smyser’s determinations and well-reasoned analysis, and while we have not

been presented with any reason to revisit them, we do reiterate the salient aspects

of the Magistrate Judge’s report.

We are in agreement with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for the

reasons that follow. As the Magistrate Judge explains, to the extent that Plaintiff’s

claim is that Defendant Thompson negligently lost or destroyed his box of

documents, there has been no deprivation of property under the due process clause. 

Case 4:05-cv-01501-JEJ Document 15 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 5
4

(Rep. & Rec. at 4-6). Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff’s claim is that

Defendant Thompson intentionally failed to mail or destroyed his box, the issue

becomes whether Plaintiff had an adequate post-deprivation remedy available for

the loss of his box. As Plaintiff had adequate post-deprivation remedies available

to him, Plaintiff fails to state a due process claim upon which relief can be granted. 

See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.19, 28 C.F.R. §§ 543.30-543.32; Rep. & Rec. at 6. 

Finally, as the Magistrate Judge notes, any amendment would be futile since any

due process claim, whether based upon negligent or intentional conduct, would fail

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Plaintiff had an adequate

post-deprivation remedy. 

Our review of this case confirms Magistrate Judge Smyser’s determinations

and we have not been presented with any reason to revisit them. Because we find

no error in Magistrate Judge Smyser’s report and recommendation and because no

objections have been filed, we will adopt it as our own. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Magistrate Judge Smyser’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 11) is

adopted in its entirety. 

2. In accordance with our Standing Practice Order, as Plaintiff has failed

to inform the Court of his updated address, Plaintiff is deemed to have

Case 4:05-cv-01501-JEJ Document 15 Filed 11/21/05 Page 4 of 5
5

abandoned this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3. The Clerk shall close the file on this case.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01501-JEJ Document 15 Filed 11/21/05 Page 5 of 5