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, )

Download PDF
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

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?