Gibson v. Regan
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 . Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/14/2023.(cs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLARENCE OTIS GIBSON
SECTION “R” (5)
Plaintiff Clarence Gibson brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in July
2023. Gibson alleges a violation of due process by Judge Cornelius Regan,
who presided over Gibson’s 2009 criminal trial proceedings in Jefferson
Parish, which ended in a conviction for sexual battery. The matter was
transferred by the Middle District of Louisiana to this Court in August 2023
with an outstanding deficiency, i.e., no fee or application to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Clerk of Court sent Gibson a notice of deficiency, provided the
correct forms, and gave him twenty-one days, or until September 5, 2023, to
respond.1 He failed to respond or comply with the notice of deficiency.
On October 30, 2023, Chief Magistrate Judge Michael B. North issued
a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court
R. Doc. 5.
dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.2 Gibson did not object to the R&R.
Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed,
the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court finds no clear
Accordingly, the Court adopts Chief Magistrate Judge North’s R&R as
its opinion. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____
14th day of November, 2023.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
R. Doc. 6.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?