Kennemer v. UTMB Medical et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 37 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 5/9/2022. (gsg)

Case 6:21-cv-00266-JDK-KNM Document 38 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 155

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JOHN DAVID KENNEMER,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
UTMB MEDICAL, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 6:21-cv-266-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff John David Kennemer filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
while he was a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The case was referred to
United States Magistrate K. Nicole Mitchell, for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On March 28, 2022, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s civil
rights lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff had failed to prosecute his
case and to keep the Court informed of his current address. Docket No. 37. A copy of this Report
was mailed to Plaintiff’s last known address, but he did not file written objections to the Report.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a
party objects within fourteen days 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1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the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).

1

Case 6:21-cv-00266-JDK-KNM Document 38 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 156

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 her 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. 7) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss
(Docket No. 32) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th

day of May, 2022.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2