KARANYA-MARQUIS DUDLEY v. DARREN M. JONES, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00012
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION § KARANYA-MARQUIS DUDLEY, § § Plaintiff, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-12-RWS-JBB v. § § DARREN M. JONES, et al., § § Defendants. § §

ORDER The above case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Before the Court is the October 3, 2025 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of the case. The Magistrate Judge recommends the case be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Docket No. 13. On April 6, 2023, the Court stayed and administratively closed the case pending resolution of criminal charges against Plaintiff. Docket No. 9. The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide the Court with status updates regarding the progress of her criminal case every two months. Id. at 6. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court within 20 days after receiving notice that her criminal case has been resolved and advised Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order might result in the dismissal without prejudice of this case for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a Court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. Plaintiff has not provided any update regarding the status of her criminal case. On September 8, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered an order instructing Plaintiff to file a status update regarding the progress of her criminal case or a notice that her criminal case has been resolved. Docket No. 11. The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that Plaintiff’s above case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). Id. A copy of the September 8 Order was sent to Plaintiff at her last known address but was returned as “unclaimed, unable to forward.” Docket No. 21.

On October 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Docket No. 13 (further noting that “insofar as [the recommended] dismissal may somehow prejudice Plaintiff, these findings, conclusions, and recommendation afford notice, and the opportunity to file objection . . . affords an opportunity to respond, to explain why this case should not be dismissed for the reasons set out above”). A copy of this Report and Recommendation was sent to Plaintiff and was again returned as undeliverable.1 Docket No. 14. Thus, Plaintiff has not only failed to update the Court regarding the status of her criminal case as ordered, but she has also failed to keep the Court apprised of her current address. Additionally, Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. Because no objections have been received to the Report and Recommendation, 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, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. After review, the Court finds that

1 As noted in the Report and Recommendation, Local Rule CV-11(d) requires that a pro se litigant must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court apprised in writing of her current physical address. Docket No. 13 at 1. Plaintiff has not advised the Court of her current mailing address or otherwise contacted the Court since acknowledging receipt of the April 6, 2023 Order. See Docket No. 10. 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’’). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 13) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of October, 2025.

[Dohert LU Lbpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3