Susan Hester-Carrillo v. United States; President Joe Biden; and Vice President Kamala Harris

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00404
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

SUSAN HESTER-CARRILLO, § § Plaintiff, § v. § § UNITED STATES; § EP-24-CV-00404-DCG PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN; and § VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS, § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Susan Hester-Carrillo filed a “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” (ECF No. 1) and a proposed Complaint (ECF No. 1–1). The Court referred the Motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres and further requested that Judge Torres pre-screen the proposed Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 Judge Torres has granted the Motion and issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) advising the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.2 For the following reasons, the Court ACCEPTS the R. & R. IN FULL. I. DISCUSSION A. No Party Objected to the R. & R. by the Applicable Deadline, So the Court Will Review the R. & R. Under the Deferential “Clearly Erroneous or Contrary to Law” Standard

The standard of review that a District Judge applies when deciding whether to accept, reject, or modify a Magistrate Judge’s R. & R. depends on whether a party has objected to it by

1 See Referral Order, ECF No. 2, at 1. 2 See generally R. & R., ECF No. 10. See also Compl., ECF No. 11 (refiled under separate docket number). the applicable deadline. If a party files a timely objection, then “the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”3 But if “no party objects to [a] Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” by the applicable deadline, then “the Court is not required to perform a de

novo review”; instead, the Court “need only review [the report and recommendation] to decide whether [it] is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”4 Here, the Clerk of Court posted Judge Torres’s R. & R. to the Court’s electronic docket on October 6, 2025.5 On October 7, 2025, the Clerk mailed the R. & R. to Plaintiff’s last known address,6 but the U.S. Postal Service returned the mailing to the courthouse as undeliverable.7 Because other mailings were returned for the same reason, the Court previously ordered Plaintiff to provide notice of her current mailing address no later than September 30, 2025.8 As of the undersigned date, she has failed to comply.

3 E.g., Mission Pharmacal Co. v. Virtus Pharms., LLC, No. 5:13-cv-00176, 2014 WL 12480014, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 4 Magdalena Garcia v. Sessions, No. 1:18-CV-59, 2018 WL 6732889, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Tamayo v. Galindo, No. 5:08-cv-00392, 2008 WL 11333884, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2008) (similar). 5 The Clerk’s office served the R. & R. on October 6, 2025, when it posted the R. & R. to the Court’s electronic docket. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2) (providing (with exceptions that don’t apply here) that when a document is served on “a registered user” of “the court’s electronic-filing system” by filing it on the electronic docket, “service is complete upon filing” (emphasis added)). 6 See Certified Mailing, ECF No. 13. 7 See Returned Mailing, ECF No. 14. 8 See Order to Provide Valid Mailing Address, ECF No. 5, at 2 (noting that it “appears that Plaintiff has changed her mailing address without informing the Court”); see also W.D. Tex. L.R. CV– 10(d) (requiring unrepresented parties to “promptly file a notice of any change in the party’s . . . mailing address” and authorizing the Court to “sanction a party for the party’s . . . failure to do so, including dismissal of the party’s claims . . . .”). More than 14 days have passed since the R. & R. was posted to the electronic docket and mailed to Plaintiff. ’ Plaintiff has “a duty to keep the court apprised of such address changes,”!? and she “is solely responsible for not receiving this document.”!! To date, no party has filed an objection, so the Court will accept the R. & R. in its entirety unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.!” B. The R. & R. Is Neither Clearly Erroneous Nor Contrary to Law After carefully reviewing Judge Torres’s R. & R., the Court concludes that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Il. CONCLUSION The Court therefore ACCEPTS Judge Torres’s “Report and Recommendation” (ECF No. 10) IN FULL. The Court thereby DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 11) WITHOUT PREJUDICE. So ORDERED and SIGNED this Sth day of November 2025. +f Anal Mf. C. GUADERRAMA SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

? See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing (with exceptions that don’t apply here) that “any party may serve and file written objections to” an R. & R. “/w/ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” (emphasis added)). '0 Lewis v. Hardy, 248 F. App’x 589, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (discussing R. & R. returned by U.S. Postal Service “as undeliverable due to an ability to forward to [pro se litigant’s] new address”). "Td. " See supra note 4 and accompanying text. 3 See generally R. & R.

-3-