The Estate of Roosevelt Holliman et al v. Turner et al

Filing 113

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying 102 MOTION for Entry of Default. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 11/14/2023. (jwr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF ROOSEVELT
HOLLIMAN; and MICHELLE
LUMZY, individually and in her
capacity as the Administratrix of
the Estate of Roosevelt Holliman

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:22-CV-75-DMB-JMV

MARSHAL TURNER, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

On October 26, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending denial of the plaintiffs’ “Motion for Entry of Default
of Defendant Lee Simon” 1 because “[t]he plaintiffs have not carried their burden of proving that
service was adequate with respect to Defendant Lee Simon.” Doc. #112 at PageID 637. The R&R
warned that “[f]ailure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings[,] conclusions and
recommendations … will bar … attacking on appeal unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted by the district court” “except upon grounds of plain error.” Id. at
PageID 637‒38. No objection to the R&R was filed.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[P]lain error review applies where
a party did not object to a magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, or
recommendation to the district court despite being served with notice of the consequences of
failing to object.” Quintero v. State of Texas – Health and Hum. Servs. Comm’n, No. 22-50916,

1

Doc. #102.

2023 WL 5236785, at *2 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2023) (cleaned up). “[W]here there is no objection,
the Court need only determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017).
Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes the R&R is neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [112] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. The
plaintiffs’ “Motion for Entry of Default of Defendant Lee Simon” [102] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of November, 2023.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2