Opinion
1:19-CV-00386-MJT-ZJH
11-18-2022
JOSE R. RUIZ, SR., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Zack Hawhorn United States Magistrate Judge
This case is assigned to the Honorable Michael J. Truncale, United States District Judge, and is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Suggestion of Death of the Plaintiff, Jose R. Ruiz, Sr. Doc. No. 24. On August 18, 2022, the undersigned issued an Order Administratively Closing Case (Doc. No. 25), directing Plaintiff's counsel to move for proper substitution of Plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) or the court will dismiss this case. As ninety (90) days have passed and Plaintiff's counsel has not filed a Rule 25(a) motion for substitution, the undersigned recommends this matter “must be dismissed.” FED. R. CIV. P. 25(a).
Recommendation
The above case should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with each party to bear its own costs of court. The Clerk should close the case and deny all pending motions as moot.
Objections
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) (Supp. IV 2011), each party to this action has the right to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Objections to this Report must (1) be in writing, (2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, (3) be served and filed within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report; and (4) be no more than eight pages in length. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); LOCAL RULE CV-72(c). A party who objects to this Report is entitled to a de novo determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
A party's failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this Report, within fourteen days of being served with a copy of this Report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 27677 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).