IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

LESTER JOE MUNN,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SANDRA CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-70-RWS-JBB

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Lester Munn’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Docket Nos. 1, 5. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned action 

complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. See Docket No. 1. The case was

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The 

Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff be denied in forma pauperis status 

and that the case be dismissed with prejudice as to the refiling of another in forma pauperis lawsuit 

raising the same claims. Docket No. 3.

Plaintiff complained of an incident that occurred on August 29, 2019. Docket No. 1. The 

Magistrate Judge observed, however, that Plaintiff signed his complaint in July of 2023, almost 

four years after the incident occurred, and well outside of the two-year statute of limitations. 

Docket No. 3 at 1–2. The Magistrate Judge also stated that Plaintiff previously filed at least three 

lawsuits or appeals which were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, thus barring 

him from proceeding in forma pauperis absent a showing of imminent danger of physical injury 

relating to the claims in the complaint. Docket No. 3 at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); see also 

Judd v. Fed. Elections Comm’n, 311 F. App’x 730, 731 (5th Cir. 2009). Because Plaintiff did not

Case 5:23-cv-00070-RWS-JBB Document 7 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28
Page 2 of 3

pay the full filing fee or show imminent danger, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of

the lawsuit with prejudice, although without prejudice to its refiling upon payment of the full 

$402.00 filing fee or a cognizable showing of imminent danger. Docket No. 3 at 4. 

Acopy oftheReport wassent to Plaintiff at hislast known address on August 16, 2023. After 

the Report was mailed, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate this lawsuit with Case No. 5:23-cv72—which has been dismissed as of this date—as well as the motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. See Docket Nos. 4, 5. On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice complaining 

that the law library had not provided him with a copy of his six-month inmate account data sheet.

Docket No. 6. Yet, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been filed.

1

Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the 

District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed 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, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, 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 the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), 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.”). Accordingly, it is 

1 The Fifth Circuit has explained that where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a 

presumption exists that the letter reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received 

by the person to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 931 F.3d 

412, 420–21, n.9 (5th Cir. 2019).

Case 5:23-cv-00070-RWS-JBB Document 7 Filed 11/30/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 29
Page 3 of 3

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 3) is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of the District Court. It is further

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

the refiling of another in forma pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims as herein presented, but 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the refiling of this lawsuit upon payment of the full $402.00 filing 

fee or a showing that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury related to the basis 

of the complaint.

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of November, 2023.

Case 5:23-cv-00070-RWS-JBB Document 7 Filed 11/30/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 30