IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

MALCOLM C MACK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BOWIE COUNTY DETENTION 

CENTER, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 5:23-CV-130

ORDER

Plaintiff Malcolm Mack, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil

action complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to

the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a report on August 7, 2024, 

recommending dismissal ofthe lawsuitforfailure to state a claimuponwhich reliefmay be granted

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. Docket No. 7. This report was returned as undeliverable. Docket 

No. 8. The on-line records of Bowie County show that Plaintiff was released from the Bowie

County Correctional Center on November 9, 2023. To date, Plaintiff has not advised the Court 

of his current mailing address.

Plaintiff’s complaint contains a declaration stating, “I understand, if I am released or 

transferred, it is my responsibility to keep the court informed of my current mailing address and

failure to do so may result in the dismissal of thislawsuit.” Docket No. 1 at 5; see also E.D. TEX.

LOC. R. CV-11(d) (stating that a pro se litigant must provide the Court with a physical address 

Case 5:23-cv-00130-RWS-JBB Document 9 Filed 09/30/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 22
Page 2 of 2

and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical 

address).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been filed, Plaintiff is

barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and

recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the

unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 

Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017).

The Court hasreviewed the pleadingsin this cause and the report of the Magistrate Judge. 

Upon such review, the Court has determined that the report of the Magistrate Judge 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 are filed, the standard of review is “clearly

erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”) It is accordingly

ORDERED that the report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 7) is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The dismissal of this lawsuit has no

effect upon Plaintiff’s right to challenge the legality of his conviction through any lawful means, 

including but not limited to state or federal habeas corpus proceedings or seeking executive 

clemency. It is further

ORDERED that any pending motions in this civil action are DENIED.

.

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of September, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00130-RWS-JBB Document 9 Filed 09/30/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 23