Robinson v. Gorsuch et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 8 Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for want of prosecution and Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 6/4/2021. (efarris, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
WILLARD JOEL ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEITH GORSUCH, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:20-cv-595-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Willard Joel Robinson, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice
inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.
Upon initial review, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file a short and
plain statement of his claim, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
After Plaintiff did not comply, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey
an order of the Court. Docket No. 8. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.

1

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to
file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and
reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S.
918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the
standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to
law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 8) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for want of
prosecution and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the Court.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2