Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-CV-00287
05-05-2022
MARCUS DOWNIE, Plaintiff, v. HERRMAN AND HERRMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DAVID S. MORALES UNTIED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchell Neurock's Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 18). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs complaint (D.E. 1), pursuant to the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (D.E. 18); see 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b)(1).
The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge's M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015).
Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 18). Accordingly, Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (D.E. 1).
SO ORDERED.