Carlisle Washington v. Bi-State Correctional Center

E.D. Texas

Carlisle Washington v. Bi-State Correctional Center

DecidedNovember 19, 2025

Docket5:24-cv-00052

StatusUnknown

This text of Carlisle Washington v. Bi-State Correctional Center (Carlisle Washington v. Bi-State Correctional Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlisle Washington v. Bi-State Correctional Center, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION § CARLISLE WASHINGTON, § § Plaintiff, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-52-RWS-JBB v. § § BI-STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, § § Defendant. § §

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Carlisle Washington filed this case, complaining that Defendant deprived him of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On October 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report, recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Docket No. 5. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address but was returned as undeliverable.1 Docket No. 6. Because no objections have been received, 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. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017).

1 Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas requires that pro se litigants must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The Court concludes that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth 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”). After review, the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 5) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the above-styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It 1s further ORDERED that all pending motions in this case are DENIED-AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of November, 2025.

[Dohert LU Llrpectsr G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION § CARLISLE WASHINGTON, § § Plaintiff, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-52-RWS-JBB v. § § BI-STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, § § Defendant. § §

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Carlisle Washington filed this case, complaining that Defendant deprived him of his constitutional rights. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On October 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report, recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Docket No. 5. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address but was returned as undeliverable.1 Docket No. 6. Because no objections have been received, 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. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017).

1 Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas requires that pro se litigants must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. The Court concludes that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth 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”). After review, the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 5) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the above-styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It 1s further ORDERED that all pending motions in this case are DENIED-AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of November, 2025.

[Dohert LU Llrpectsr G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carlisle Washington v. Bi-State Correctional Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlisle-washington-v-bi-state-correctional-center-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack