Estrada v. Livingston et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report of the Magistrate Judge 6 is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. This civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 01/10/14. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JOE SALINAS ESTRADA

§

v.

§

BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13cv728

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Joe Salinas Estrada, 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.
On October 29, 2013, Estrada was ordered to pay the filing fee or submit an application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis which was accompanied by a certified inmate trust account data
sheet. These orders were returned to the Court with the notation “Refused to Accept.”
When Estrada did not pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report on December 4, 2013, recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. The Magistrate Judge
observed that in a letter sent to the Court, Estrada stated that if he “does not detect the legal emblem
image of the Court’s title and place of business, I cannot except [sic] such fake and forged phantom
forum’s presentation.”
A copy of the Report was sent to Estrada on two separate occasions, but each time was
returned with the notation “Refused.” Having chosen to decline mail from the Court, Estrada has
1

waived his right to object; 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).
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. ) 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 or to obey an order of the Court. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of January, 2014.

__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2