1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

WILLIAM STEPHAN HOLLOWAY, 

JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GREGG COUNTY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-560-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff William S. Holloway, a former inmate within the Gregg County Jail, 

proceeding pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for 

disposition. 

On November 5, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the 

Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and that Plainitff’’s lawsuit 

be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to timely refile. Docket No. 23. A 

copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff’s last-known address but was returned as 

“undeliverable.” Docket No. 24. No objections have been received. Plaintiff has failed 

to file an updated mailing address or otherwise communicate with the Court in any 

way. See Loc. R. CV-11(d) (“A pro se litigant . . . is responsible for keeping the clerk 

advised in writing of his or her current physical address.”); Docket No. 8 at 5 

Case 6:23-cv-00560-JDK-JDL Document 25 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

92
2 

(Plaintiff’s amended complaint including a declaration stating that Plaintiff has the 

responsibility to keep the Court informed of his current mailing address). 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service 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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 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 the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 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 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 23) as the findings of this Court. 

 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

(Docket No. 18) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26th November, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00560-JDK-JDL Document 25 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

93