Chaney v. Guerra et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 21 Report and Recommendations, Case terminated on 3/27/2024.(Signed by Senior Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified. (jen7)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
KYLE TYSON CHANEY,
Plaintiff,
VS.
J.E. EDDIE GUERRA, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

March 27, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:22-CV-415

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Kyle Tyson Chaney’s prisoner civil rights complaint1 which
had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation.
Previously, the Magistrate Court issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending
that the Court deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees, but that Plaintiff
be given thirty (30) days to pay the filing fee.2 The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation
on January 8, 2024.3 Subsequently, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to submit a certified
copy of his prison trust fund account4 which the Magistrate Court granted.5 After that deadline
passed, the Magistrate Court entered the instant Report and Recommendation recommending
dismissal for failure to prosecute. The time for filing objections has passed and no objections have
been filed.
Instead, Plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Pause” until his “release of incarseeration [sic] and
allow [him] to continue prosecution, rather than dismiss the case entirely.”6 Plaintiff has been

1

Dkt. No. 1.
Dkt. No. 17.
3
Dkt. No. 18.
4
Dkt. No. 19.
5
Dkt. No. 20.
6
Dkt. No. 22 at 1.
2

given ample opportunity to submit the requested documentation and to prosecute this case and has
failed to do so. Accordingly, the motion to pause is hereby DENIED.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and
Recommendation for clear error.7 Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s civil rights action is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to prosecute and this case is CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 27th day of March 2024.

__________________________________
Micaela Alvarez
Senior United States District Judge

As noted by the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he advisory committee’s note to Rule 72(b) states that, ‘[w]hen no timely objection
is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.’” Douglas v. United States Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)) superseded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n. 5 (5th Cir. April 2, 2012).
7