Bear v. Ross et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendation and dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the court. All pending motions are denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/6/17. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
LANCE BEAR

§

v.

§

PEACHES ROSS, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv4

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Lance Bear, a former inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division, 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.
Bear was ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee of $16.17, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(b). When he failed to do so, 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.
Because the incidents giving rise to the lawsuit began in January of 2014, the Magistrate Judge also
recommended that the statute of limitations be suspended for a period of ninety days following the
date of entry of final judgment.
A copy of this Report was sent to Bear at his last known address, return receipt requested,
but was returned with the notation that he had been discharged. Because no objections were filed
to the Report, Bear 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 factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District

1

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. 8) 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. It is further
ORDERED that the statute of limitations on the claims raised in this lawsuit is
SUSPENDED for a period of ninety days following the date of entry of final judgment in this case.
This suspension of the limitation period affects only those claims which were not barred by
limitations as of the date the original complaint was signed, on December 29, 2015. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6 day of March, 2017.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2