IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ANTHONY SCOTT WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MICHAEL LUSK, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-00018-RWSJBB

ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony White, an inmate now confined in the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice—Correctional Institutions Division proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights by officials in 

Bowie County, Texas. Docket No. 1. The named Defendants are retained defense counsel 

Michael Lusk, public defender Bart Craytor, assistant district attorneys Kelly Crisp and 

Lauren Richards, and an unnamed arresting officer. See id. The lawsuit was referred to

United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter.

On July 24, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, 

recommending the above-captioned lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted because the defendant defense attorneys are not state actors, 

the prosecutors are protected by absolute immunity, and the claims against the arresting officer

are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).1 Docket No. 11. A copy of this Report

1 The Magistrate Judge further noted the lawsuit may be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to 

obey an order of the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to pay the statutory filing fee of $405.00 or submit a certified in forma pauperis data sheet 

or inmate account summary sheet, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), as ordered on April 10, 

2024. See Docket Nos. 6, 8 (Plaintiff’s acknowledgment of receipt of the April 19 Order).

Case 5:24-cv-00018-RWS-JBB Document 12 Filed 09/04/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 45
was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, but no objections have been received. 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 Company of 

Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420–21 (5th Cir. 2019); see also id. at 421 n.9.

Because no objections have been received, Petitioner 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, 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 cause and the Report and Recommendation 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”). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation 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 WITH PREJUDICE as 

to the Defendants Michael Lusk, Bart Craytor, Kelly Crisp and Lauren Richards, and WITH 

PREJUDICE against the arresting officer until such time as Plaintiff can show that his 

conviction has been overturned, expunged, or otherwise set aside. The dismissal of this lawsuit

Case 5:24-cv-00018-RWS-JBB Document 12 Filed 09/04/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 46
shall not prevent Plaintiff from challenging his conviction through any lawful means, including 

but not limited to state or federal habeas corpus proceedings or executive clemency.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2024.

Case 5:24-cv-00018-RWS-JBB Document 12 Filed 09/04/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 47