Coker v. Egan

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 36 Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey a Court order. It is further ORDERED that in order to prevent t his dismissal from acting asa dismissal with prejudice by reason of limitations, the statute of limitations is SUSPENDED for a period of 90 days following the date of entry of final judgment. 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
JAMIE LEE COKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHERYL EGAN,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:21-cv-5-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jamie Lee Coker, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.
The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to pay the statutory filing fee or submit
an in forma pauperis application and a certified inmate trust account data sheet, as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). After Plaintiff did not comply, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending that the Court dismiss this lawsuit without prejudice
for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. A copy of this Report was
sent to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the Report on April 27, 2021.
Docket No. 37. No objections have been filed.
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.
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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. 36) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
prosecute or to obey a Court order.
It is further ORDERED that in order to prevent this dismissal from acting as
a dismissal with prejudice by reason of limitations, the statute of limitations is
SUSPENDED for a period of 90 days following the date of entry of final judgment.
All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE