Opinion
6:21-cv-428-JDK-JDL
11-04-2022
GREGORY KEITH THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. WALTER MITCHELL BROOKES, et al. Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEREMY D. KERNODLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Gregory Keith Thomas filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge, John D. Love, for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On September 15, 2022, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Docket No. 41. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, who received it on September 20, 2022. Docket No. 42. Plaintiff did not file any written objections to the Report
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 41) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 34, 35) are GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
So ORDERED.