Seaton v. Smith County Jail

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The report of the magistrate judge 6 is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. The above-styled 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 Michael H. Schneider on 12/02/15. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
HUBERT SEATON

§

v.

§

SMITH COUNTY JAIL

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv156

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Hubert Seaton, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. 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.
The magistrate judge ordered Seaton to pay the statutory filing fee or submit an application
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis which was accompanied by an inmate trust account data
sheet. By separate order, Seaton was also directed to file an amended complaint setting out his
claims with more factual specificity.
When Seaton did not respond to either of these orders, the magistrate judge issued a report
recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an
order of the Court. A copy of this report was sent to Seaton 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. 6) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action 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.
SIGNED this 2nd day of December, 2015.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2