Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Franklin v. Hawkins — Court dismissed civil-rights suit without prejudice for failure to prosecute

Reported / Citable

Case
Robert Leon Franklin v. Grayson County Sheriff’s Office, et al.
Court
U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
Judge
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
Date Decided
July 21, 2026
Docket No.
4:25-cv-00663
Topics
Civil Rights; Failure to Prosecute; Pro Se Litigants

Background

Robert Leon Franklin, proceeding without counsel, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter.

On April 24, 2026, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Franklin had not notified the court of his current mailing address or whereabouts. The recommendation mailed to his last known address was returned as undeliverable with a notation that he had been released from custody on February 10, 2026. Franklin did not provide an updated address or object to the recommendation.

The Court’s Holding

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It explained that Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d) requires a pro se litigant to provide a physical address and keep the clerk advised in writing of any change, while the court has no duty to locate a litigant who fails to do so.

Because Franklin filed no objections, the court reviewed the pleadings and recommendation under the standard applicable to an unobjected-to report and concluded that the recommendation was correct. The court also denied as moot any motions that remained pending.

Key Takeaways

  • A pro se litigant must maintain a current physical address with the clerk under Local Rule CV-11(d).
  • Failure to update an address and remain reachable may support dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
  • Failing to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation limits district-court and appellate review of the accepted findings and conclusions.

Why It Matters

The order underscores that self-represented litigants remain responsible for complying with procedural rules and maintaining contact with the court. A plaintiff’s failure to provide updated contact information can prevent the case from proceeding even when the underlying claims have not been decided on their merits.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top