Opinion
Civil Action 4:20-cv-318-ALM-KPJ
11-02-2022
ROBERTO VENZOR, Plaintiff, v. COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. See Dkt. 8. On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff Roberto Venzor's (“Plaintiff”) claims against Defendants Jim Skinner and Collin County were dismissed with prejudice. See Dkt. 40. Defendants Unknown Guards and Unknown Supervisors (together, the “Remaining Defendants”) are the remaining defendants in this action. The Remaining Defendants have not appeared in this action and, to date, no return of service has been filed as to the Remaining Defendants.
On October 17, 2022, the Court ordered that within fourteen (14) days after receiving service of the order, Plaintiff shall file a status report informing the Court as to whether he wishes to proceed with his claims against the Remaining Defendants. See Dkt. 42. The Court advised, “If Plaintiff fails to timely file his status report, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff's claims against the Remaining Defendants be dismissed without prejudice. If dismissal is satisfactory to Plaintiff, no further action is necessary.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a status report informing the Court as to whether he wishes to proceed with his claims against the Remaining Defendants.
It is, therefore, recommended that Plaintiff's claims against the Remaining Defendants be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
A party is entitled to a de novo review by the district court of the findings and conclusions contained in this report only if specific objections are made, and failure to timely file written objections to any proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party from appellate review of those factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except on grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
So ORDERED