1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

JAMES RUSSELL ODEN, #0122081 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv442

MIKE LEWIS §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff James Russell Oden, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an original 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred for findings of fact, conclusions of 

law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On January 3, 2024, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to replead his original complaint 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted within 30 days of the court’s order. (Dkt. #9). 

The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his stated address at the Gregg County Jail County. The Order 

warned Plaintiff that his complaint may be dismissed—without further notice—if he failed to 

comply with the Order. 

The court’s Order was returned as Plaintiff was no longer housed at the Gregg County Jail. 

(Dkt. #10). On February 28, 2024, the court directed the Clerk of Court to send the Order to 

Plaintiff at the Bradshaw State Jail, sua sponte. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice website 

reflected that Plaintiff was being housed at the Bradshaw State Jail at that time. 

As explained to Plaintiff at the bottom of his section 1983 complaint (Dkt. #1, p. 5), it is 

his “responsibility to keep the court informed of [his] current mailing address and failure to do so 

Case 6:23-cv-00442-JDK-JDL Document 13 Filed 04/08/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

34
2

may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit.” This requirement is also memorialized in the Eastern 

District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d): “A pro se litigant must provide the court with a physical 

address, i.e., a P.O. Box is not acceptable, and is responsible for keeping the clerk advised in 

writing of the current physical address.”

As of the date of this Report, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a new address and 

has not complied with the court’s Order. He has failed to prosecute this case. 

The exercise of the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or obey a court order is 

committed to the sound discretion of the court and appellate review is confined solely in whether 

the court’s discretion was abused. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez 

v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court 

dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also, sua sponte, dismiss 

an action whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony 

v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164 (5th Cir. 1980). 

 Recommendation

It is therefore recommended that Plaintiff’s original complaint be dismissed without 

prejudice for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may 

serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy 

shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to 

Case 6:23-cv-00442-JDK-JDL Document 13 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

35
3

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on 

other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen 

days).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of April, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00442-JDK-JDL Document 13 Filed 04/08/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

36