Hancock v. Roberts

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: July 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00099
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 14, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ANTHONY HANCOCK, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00099 § ROBERTS, et al., § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Anthony Hancock filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 14, 2025. However, Plaintiff has failed to pursue this action by not responding to Court orders and by failing to update his current contact information. (D.E. 13). On June 11, 2025, after Plaintiff failed to appear at the scheduled Spears hearing, jail officials reported Plaintiff received a sentence of time served and has been released from custody. (D.E. 13). The hearing has not been reset because Plaintiff’s address and contact information are unknown and recent mail has been returned as undeliverable. (D.E. 14 and D.E. 15). The undersigned also entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file an updated address on or before July 11, 2025. (D.E. 13). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the undersigned’s Order to update his current contact information. (D.E. 13). Plaintiff has filed several cases with this Court and has been admonished that it is his responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his address and 1 / 3 to file a notice of change of address in the event he is released from incarceration or his case would be dismissed for want of prosecution. (D.E. 13). Therefore, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (Sth Cir. 1997) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a cause of action for failure to prosecute). ORDERED on July 14, 2025.

United States Magistrate Judge

2/3

NOTICE TO PARTIES The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the

United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Article IV, General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation within

FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

3 / 3