IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ANTHONY SCOTT WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNKNOWN WARDEN, ET AL., 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 5:23-cv-146-RWS-JBB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Anthony Scott White, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered 

civil action complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Docket No. 1. The case 

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

On January 2, 2024, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to pay the statutory filing fee 

or submit an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by a certified 

inmate account data sheet, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Docket No. 4. A copy of a 

standard in forma pauperis application form was sent to Plaintiff for his use. 

By separate order, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 

setting out a short and plain statement of his claims, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Docket No. 

5. The order provided guidance to Plaintiff in filing his amended complaint, specifying that he

should include a concise statement of his claims, including dates if known; the individual or 

individuals whom Plaintiff wished to sue; a statement showing how each named Defendant is 

involved in the facts forming the basis of the claim; the harm suffered as a result of the facts 

forming the basis of the claim; the specific relief sought; and a statement of whether or not Plaintiff 

had exhausted his administrative remedies. See id.

Case 5:23-cv-00146-RWS-JBB Document 18 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 70
Page 2 of 3

When Plaintiff did not comply with these orders, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on 

February 27, 2024, recommending dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice. Docket No. 11. The 

Magistrate Judge observed that Plaintiff had filed a number of documents but none of these 

comprised a short and plain statement of his claims or could serve as the operative pleading in the 

case. Id. at 1. Although Plaintiff stated that he had $53.85, he did not furnish an application for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis or an inmate account data sheet. See id. at 1–2. The Magistrate 

Judge also recommended that the statute of limitations be suspended for 60 days following the 

date of entry of dismissal. Id. at 3. 

Following the Report, Plaintiff filed a handwritten motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, without using the standard form and without attaching an inmate account data sheet. 

Docket No. 12. Plaintiff also filed a motion for a speedy trial saying that he is innocent of all 

crimes, although the validity of his criminal conviction is not at issue in the present case (Docket 

No. 12), and a wide-ranging motion to subpoena evidence couched in very broad and general terms

(Docket No. 13). 

On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document dated March 18, 2024, which he styles as a 

“motion for appeal of dismissal of case no. 5:23cv146.” Docket No. 15. Because the case has not 

yet been dismissed, the Court will construe the pleading as objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report.1

 

In his objections, Plaintiff complains that his legal mail is taking too long to reach him, he 

cannot order stamps or envelopes, a mailroom official opened his mail and took one of his receipts, 

and he now believes he is missing the document dismissing his case (although, as noted above, the 

1 The Court, however, notes it received an acknowledgement of receipt of the Report dated March 25, 2024, after 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal. Docket No. 16. As of the date of 

this order, the Court has received no further objections to the Report.

Case 5:23-cv-00146-RWS-JBB Document 18 Filed 04/15/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 71
Page 3 of 3

case had not yet been dismissed). Docket No. 15. He says that various unidentified TDCJ officials 

are cooperating to conceal crimes against him and continue his false imprisonment. Id. at 2. 

Plaintiff does not address his failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s orders, particularly in 

light of the fact that he has been able to file other pleadings both before and after the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report. See generally, id.

The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) (District Judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo 

review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the 

Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. It is accordingly

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate 

Judge (Docket No. 11) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. It is further

ORDERED that the statute of limitations is SUSPENDED for a period of sixty (60) days 

following the date of entry of final judgment. 

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of April, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00146-RWS-JBB Document 18 Filed 04/15/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 72