Francis v. John Doe

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 8 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. It is ORDERED that 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 6/1/2024. (gsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JOHN FRANCIS, #2253451,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:24-cv-089-JDK-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff John Francis, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without
paying the filing fee. The case was transferred to this Court for proper venue and
referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On April 30, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s
lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff had failed to comply
with the Court’s order to amend his complaint and satisfy the filing fee requirement
for this case. Docket No. 8. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, who received
it on May 6, 2024, but did not file written objections or pay the required initial fee.
Docket No. 9.
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

1

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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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. 8) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1st

day of June, 2024.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2