Opinion
1:24-CV-322-DII
07-25-2024
ROBERT DALLEY, Plaintiff, v. RANDOLPH BROOKS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant.
ORDER
ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell concerning Plaintiff Robert Dalley's (“Plaintiff”) “Petition for Default Judgment”pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (R. & R., Dkt. 4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Howell issued his report and recommendation on June 17, 2024. (Id.). As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the report and recommendation.
As the report and recommendation explains, Plaintiff filed a “Petition for Default Judgment” rather than a complaint as his initial filing in this matter. (R.&R., Dkt. 4, at 2).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. When no objections are timely filed, a district court can review the magistrate's report and recommendation for clear error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note (“When 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.”).
Because Plaintiff has not filed timely objections, the Court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Having done so and finding no clear error, the Court accepts and adopts the report and recommendation as its own order.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. 4), is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's “Petition for Default Judgment,” (Dkt. 1), is DENIED.
The Court will enter final judgment by separate order.