IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JAMES VALENTINIS-DEE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

REAL ESTATE VALUE,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-51-MJT-CLS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S 

CLAIMS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(b)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this proceeding to the undersigned 

magistrate judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend 

disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72.

I. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for 

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “The authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to 

control its own docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. 

Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 

U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).

II. Discussion

On February 12, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a hand-written complaint against 

Defendant alleging violations of “custodial responsibilities” resulting in damages in excess of 

Case 1:24-cv-00051-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 15
2

$300,000. (Doc. #1.) The case was assigned to the undersigned for pretrial management and the 

Clerk’s Office mailed the Notice of Case Assignment and Consent to Proceed Before U.S. 

Magistrate to Plaintiff. On February 13, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing 

fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. #2.) The Clerk Office’s mailed that order 

to Plaintiff as well. Both the order and notice form, however, were returned as undeliverable

because Plaintiff was no longer at his listed address. (Docs. #3, #4.)

To date, Plaintiff has not advised the court of a proper address at which Plaintiff can be 

contacted. Plaintiff’s failure to provide the court with a current address warrants dismissal of his 

case under Rule 41(b). See Nash v. Boquet, No. CV 20-717, 2020 WL 7232493 (E.D. La. Nov. 

23, 2020) R&R adopted, No. CV 20-717, 2020 WL 7229701 (E.D. La. Dec. 8, 2020) (dismissing 

Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice due to his failure to provide notice of an address change); Love 

v. F.B.I., No. 3-02-CV-1172-M, 2002 WL 2030828, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2002) (“The court 

is not required to delay disposition in this case until such time as Plaintiff decides to comply with 

the requirement of providing his current address.”).

The undersigned, therefore, recommends this action be DISMISSED without prejudice 

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). A copy of this Report and Recommendation will be mailed to 

Plaintiff's last known address as reflected on the court's docket.

III. Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must 

serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the 

place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

Case 1:24-cv-00051-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 16
3

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific.

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjectedto factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that 

such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 

79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 11th day of March, 2024.

Case 1:24-cv-00051-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 17