Doud v. Livingston et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 12 Report and Recommendations. This civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 07/11/13. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
BRIAN WILLIAM DOUD

§

v.

§

BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13cv328

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Brian Doud, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. This Court ordered that the case be referred to
the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order
for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
An evidentiary hearing was scheduled and a copy of the hearing notice was sent to Doud;
however, the notice was returned with the notation that Doud had been discharged. To date, he has
not notified the Court of his present address.
After review of the record, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A copy of this Report was sent to
Doud at his last known address, return receipt requested, but no objections have been received;
accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions,
and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district
court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc).

1

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report 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 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(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.”). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 12) is hereby ADOPTED as
.
the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED without prejudice
for failure to prosecute. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 11th day of July, 2013.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2