Corey Coleman v. William T. Mullins et al.

E.D. Texas

Corey Coleman v. William T. Mullins et al.

DecidedNovember 5, 2025

Docket6:25-cv-00272

StatusUnknown

This text of Corey Coleman v. William T. Mullins et al. (Corey Coleman v. William T. Mullins et al.) 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

Corey Coleman v. William T. Mullins et al., (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00272 Corey Coleman, Plaintiff, V. William T. Mullins et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate pro- ceeding pro se, filed this action complaining of civil-rights viola- tions. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that the court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to comply with two court orders of the court—namely, orders directing plaintiff to (1) submit an initial, partial filing fee of $8.45 within thirty days from receipt of the order (Doc. 4), and (2) file an amended com- plaint, also within thirty days of receipt (Doc. 5). Doc. 7 at 2. The court mailed the report to plaintiff’s last-known address. However, plaintiff did not file written objections. Proof of mailing creates a presumption that the properly addressed 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 Can., 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 (5th Cir. 2019). When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis- fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find- ings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with two court orders. Any pend- ing motions are denied as moot.

-l-

So ordered by the court on November 5, 2025. _flacboke BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00272 Corey Coleman, Plaintiff, V. William T. Mullins et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate pro- ceeding pro se, filed this action complaining of civil-rights viola- tions. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that the court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to comply with two court orders of the court—namely, orders directing plaintiff to (1) submit an initial, partial filing fee of $8.45 within thirty days from receipt of the order (Doc. 4), and (2) file an amended com- plaint, also within thirty days of receipt (Doc. 5). Doc. 7 at 2. The court mailed the report to plaintiff’s last-known address. However, plaintiff did not file written objections. Proof of mailing creates a presumption that the properly addressed 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 Can., 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 (5th Cir. 2019). When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis- fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find- ings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with two court orders. Any pend- ing motions are denied as moot.

-l-

So ordered by the court on November 5, 2025. _flacboke BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Corey Coleman v. William T. Mullins et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corey-coleman-v-william-t-mullins-et-al-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack