Bell-Boyd v. Munroe

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00173
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

LEXUS BELL-BOYD, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-173-JDK-KNM § MARTHA FARRINGTON MUNROE, § et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Lexus Bell-Boyd filed this lawsuit seeking the return of her children and the revocation of state court filings. Docket No. 3. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 14, 2025, the Court entered a deficiency order due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the full filing fee or to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 10) and an order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint showing a basis for federal court jurisdiction (Docket No. 11). Plaintiff did not respond to either order. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint (Docket No. 3). On June 27, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Docket No. 13. No written objections have been filed. The Report was mailed to Plaintiff at the address she provided, and it was returned undeliverable. Docket No. 14. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service 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. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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, neither party filed any objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 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. 13) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Signed this ) 0p Oct 7, 2025 TEREMY DJ KERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE