IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

DALTON GRANT MILLER § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:24-cv-9

STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dalton Grant Miller, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit. This

matter was referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United

States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the

disposition of the case.

Discussion

Judicial notice is taken that in Miller v. Sheriff, Shelby County, No. 9:24cv8 (E.D. Tex.), a

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (doc. #3) was submitted

recommending that case be dismissed. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent to

Plaintiff at the Shelby County Jail, the address Plaintiff provided in that case as well as in the abovestyled action. The copy of the Report and Recommendation was returned to the court as

undeliverable (doc. #5), indicating Plaintiff is no longer at the address provided. Plaintiff has not

provided the court with a new address in either civil action number 9:24cv8 or in this matter.

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

want of prosecution sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious

disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). 

See also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Eastern District of Texas

Local Rule CV-11(d) requires pro se litigants such as Plaintiff to provide the court with a physical

address and keep the clerk advised in writing of a current address.

Case 9:24-cv-00009-MAC-CLS Document 4 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 19
By not providing the court with his current address, Plaintiff has prevented the court from

communicating with him and moving this case towards resolution. He has therefore failed to

diligently prosecute this case. As a result, this case should be dismissed without prejudice for want

of prosecution.

Recommendation

This civil rights lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Within 14 days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file

written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved

party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and

recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by

the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d

1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 30th day of May, 2024.

Case 9:24-cv-00009-MAC-CLS Document 4 Filed 05/30/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20