1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION

§

JERRY J. MILLS §

§

Plaintiff §

§

v. § Case No. 5:23cv64-RWS-JBB

§

JUDGE TIDWELL, ET AL. §

§

Defendants §

§

ORDER

Plaintiff Jerry Mills, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights 

lawsuit complaining of alleged deprivations 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.

Plaintiff sued State District Judge John Tidwell and Bowie County assistant public defender 

Bart Craytor. Id. at 3. After reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on

September 26, 2023, recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state 

a claim as to its refiling as a civil rights lawsuit, but without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to seek 

relief through state or federal habeas corpus or by other lawful means. Docket No. 7.

A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address but was returned as 

undeliverable. Docket No. 8. On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address,

following this on January 19, 2024 with another notice of change of address. Docket Nos. 9, 10. 

Copies of the Report were sent to Plaintiff on November 22, 2023 and January 9, 2024, and

acknowledgment cards show that Plaintiff received these copies on February 2 and February 15, 

2024. Docket Nos. 11, 12.

However, no objections have been filed. As a result, 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. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 

Case 5:23-cv-00064-RWS-JBB Document 13 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 39
2

858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203- RAS, 

2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. 

Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See

Martin v. Driskell, No. 6:19-CV-311-JDK-KNM, 2023 WL 5827586, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 

2023) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 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”). Accordingly, it is

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 as to its refiling as a civil rights lawsuit, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 

Plaintiff’s right to seek relief through state or federal habeas corpus or by other lawful means. 

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of May, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00064-RWS-JBB Document 13 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 40