Lesford Mark Reid v. Bryan K. Dobbs, et al.

E.D. Texas

Lesford Mark Reid v. Bryan K. Dobbs, et al.

DecidedOctober 28, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-00032

StatusUnknown

This text of Lesford Mark Reid v. Bryan K. Dobbs, et al. (Lesford Mark Reid v. Bryan K. Dobbs, 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

Lesford Mark Reid v. Bryan K. Dobbs, et al., (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION LESFORD MARK REID §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-32 BRYAN K. DOBBS, ET AL. § ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Lesford Mark Reid, a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. On September 22, 2025, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for want of prosecution. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the report and

recommendation. The Court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. After careful review, the Court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. Because the statute of limitations would bar future litigation of Plaintiff’s claims, a dismissal would act as a dismissal with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and if lesser sanctions would not serve the interests of justice. Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 766 (Sth Cir. 2014). In this case, Plaintiff has not exhibited a clear record of contumacious conduct, but his failure to update his address prevents the Court from contacting him. The Court has considered imposing lesser sanctions and found them inadequate to address the current situation. Because Plaintiff □□ proceeding in forma pauperis, the imposition of monetary sanctions is almost certainly futile. A dismissal is the only sanction available in this instance, but the Court will lessen the sanction by allowing Plaintiff to reopen the case by providing the Court with his current address within thirty days of the date the judgment is entered. ORDER Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge [Dkt. 41] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this memorandum order.

SIGNED this 28th day of October, 2025.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge

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 BEAUMONT DIVISION LESFORD MARK REID §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-32 BRYAN K. DOBBS, ET AL. § ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Lesford Mark Reid, a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. On September 22, 2025, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for want of prosecution. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the report and

recommendation. The Court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. After careful review, the Court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. Because the statute of limitations would bar future litigation of Plaintiff’s claims, a dismissal would act as a dismissal with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and if lesser sanctions would not serve the interests of justice. Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 766 (Sth Cir. 2014). In this case, Plaintiff has not exhibited a clear record of contumacious conduct, but his failure to update his address prevents the Court from contacting him. The Court has considered imposing lesser sanctions and found them inadequate to address the current situation. Because Plaintiff □□ proceeding in forma pauperis, the imposition of monetary sanctions is almost certainly futile. A dismissal is the only sanction available in this instance, but the Court will lessen the sanction by allowing Plaintiff to reopen the case by providing the Court with his current address within thirty days of the date the judgment is entered. ORDER Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge [Dkt. 41] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this memorandum order.

SIGNED this 28th day of October, 2025.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lesford Mark Reid v. Bryan K. Dobbs, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lesford-mark-reid-v-bryan-k-dobbs-et-al-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack