# Brown v. Woodland

> District Court, S.D. Mississippi · October 5, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10246818

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Mississippi
- **Decided:** October 5, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10246818

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER DALTON BROWN PLAINTIFF

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20CV275-LG-RPM

GWENDOLYN WOODLAND et al DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Christopher Dalton Brown,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed on August 21, 2020, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner
civil rights complaint alleging inadequate medical care for treatment of gender identity disorder.
On August 25, 2021, the Court set this matter for a screening hearing to be conducted by video
conference on October 4, 2021. Doc. [31]. The notice of hearing was mailed to Plaintiff at his
address of record at the Wilkinson County Correctional Facility (WCCF). On September 9,
2021, mail containing the notice of hearing was returned undelivered. Doc. [33] [34]. The
undersigned notes that on two previous occasions, notices of electronic filing mailed to
Plaintiff’s WCCF address were also returned undelivered. See Doc. [14] [30]. As the docket
reflects, Plaintiff has been advised repeatedly that it is his responsibility to advise the Court of a
change of address and that failure to do so may result in dismissal of his lawsuit. See Doc. [3]
[5] [8] [10] [11] [27]. In fact, Plaintiff has filed notices of change of address on two prior
occasions. Doc. [7] [13]. Thus, he was aware of this responsibility.
On October 4, 2021, the undersigned called Plaintiff’s case for purposes of conducting
the scheduled hearing. A video link was established with WCCF for purposes of conducting the
hearing. Plaintiff did not appear for the video conference. Monica Carter, with the records
department at WCCF, participated in the hearing by telephone. She advised the Court that
Plaintiff is not an inmate at WCCF; therefore, he would not be attending the hearing. Based on
the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to maintain a current address of record.
The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff is no longer interested in pursuing his lawsuit.

Accordingly, his complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff Christopher Dalton Brown’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 prisoner civil rights complaint be dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to
prosecute.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to this report must serve and
file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy unless the time
period is modified by the District Court. A party filing objections must specifically identify
those findings, conclusions and recommendations to which objections are being made; the

District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Such party shall
file the objections with the Clerk of the Court and serve the objections on the District Judge and
on all other parties. A party's failure to file such objections to the proposed findings, conclusions
and recommendation contained in this report shall bar that party from a de novo determination
by the District Court. Additionally, a party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in this report within fourteen (14) days
after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that have been accepted
by the district court and for which there is no written objection. Douglass v. United Services
Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 5th day of October 2021.

/s/ Robert P. Myers, Jr.
ROBERT P. MYERS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10246818. Public record. Not legal advice.