Barlow v. US Office of Currency

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-01458
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

CLINTON C. BARLOW,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:24-CV-1458-JKP

US OFFICE OF CURRENCY, C/O FEDERAL BANKS; CEO CHARLES W. SCHWARTZ, ENTERPRISES COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT OFFICE; C/O G. KENNEDY-THOMPSON, C/O BLACK ROCK, C/O THE VANGUARD GROUP, ABIGAIL JOHNSON, C/O WFB; WACHOVIA BANK CEO, NJ DMV CEO, C/O TITLE LEAN RELEASE,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) filed on September 2, 2025. The Magistrate Judge recommends that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), the Court dismiss all claims by Plaintiff for his failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with a court order, and for want of prosecution. The Magistrate Judge provided instructions for service and notified all parties of their right to object. The notice informed the parties that any objection must be specific, written, and filed within fourteen days. It further warned that a failure to object “shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the district court.” No one has filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only to determine whether any finding or recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Johnson v. Sw. Research Inst., 210 F. Supp. 3d 863, 864 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (citing U.S. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989)).! Consistent with § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Finding no such error, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation. As recommended, the Court DISMISSES all remaining claims by Plaintiff for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Subject to any bar to these claims, such as an applicable statute of limitations, this dismissal is without prejudice to him pursuing the claims in a different action. This dismissal does not affect the claims dismissed with prejudice through the previously filed joint stipulation (ECF No. 5). By separate document, the Court will issue an appropriate judgment. It is so ORDERED this 2nd day of October 2025. \ Wham J N PULLIAM TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

! While Rule 72(b) does not facially require any review in the absence of a specific objection, the advisory committee notes following its adoption in 1983 state: “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Further, failure to object shall also bar appellate review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that were ultimately accepted by the district court, unless the party demonstrates plain error. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.