Blanchard v. Smith County Jail

Filing 43

ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. (Motion(s) 41 terminated). Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 3/7/2025. (wea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CHRISTIAN BLANCHARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN STARLING, OFFICER,
SMITH COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:23-cv-548-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Christian Blanchard, a former inmate of the Smith County Jail,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against Defendant
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket No. 6. The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for disposition of the action.
On February 10, 2025, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that
Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order
and failure to prosecute. Docket No. 41. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the
time to do so has passed.
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 file any objections. The Court therefore reviews the
Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal
conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 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. 41) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of March, 2025.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2