Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00176
12-27-2022
PARIS RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On October 28, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued a “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (M&R, D.E. 6), recommending that this action be dismissed for want of prosecution for failure to pay the filing fee or to seek leave to appear in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13.
No objections have been timely filed. Instead, Plaintiff sent the Court a letter dated November 7, 2022, stating that his payment of five dollars ($5.00) was being removed from his trust account. Presumably, Plaintiff is representing that he made arrangements for the payment of the filing fee for this case. However, the filing fee remains unpaid.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's M&R is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge's M&R. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge's M&R (D.E. 6), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Final judgment will be withheld for thirty (30) days to give Plaintiff an opportunity to file a motion to reinstate and demonstrate that the filing fee has been paid.