Chavez v. Pierce

Full title: EMILIO CHAVEZ v. BILL PIERCE, ET AL.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Date published: Jan 7, 2014

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13cv522 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13cv522

01-07-2014

EMILIO CHAVEZ v. BILL PIERCE, ET AL.

MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff Emilio Chavez, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.

On August 22, 2013, Chavez was ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee of $12.00 or to show good cause for his failure to do so. When Chavez did not comply, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on October 2, 2013 recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Chavez received a copy of the Magistrate Judge's Report on or before October 11, 2013, but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law."). It is accordingly

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 15) is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Finally, it is

ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED.

It is SO ORDERED.

________________

MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE