Walker v. Bennett

E.D. Texas

Walker v. Bennett

DecidedOctober 2, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00036

StatusUnknown

This text of Walker v. Bennett (Walker v. Bennett) 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

Walker v. Bennett, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

WILLIS E. WALKER, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-36-RWS-JBB § LT. BENNETT, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Plaintiff Willis Walker, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil action complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 15), recommending the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service of process. Docket No. 11. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address but was returned as undeliverable.1 Docket No. 12. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017);

1 Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas requires that pro se litigants must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that 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 of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect service of process. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2025.

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

Page 2 of 2

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 TEXARKANA DIVISION

WILLIS E. WALKER, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-36-RWS-JBB § LT. BENNETT, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Plaintiff Willis Walker, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil action complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 15), recommending the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service of process. Docket No. 11. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address but was returned as undeliverable.1 Docket No. 12. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017);

1 Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas requires that pro se litigants must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that 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 of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect service of process. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2025.

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

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Walker v. Bennett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-bennett-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack