Benny R. Odem, Jr. v. Douglas W. Foust, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00070
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

BENNY R. ODEM, Jr., #01703386, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-70-JDK-JDL § DOUGLAS W. FOUST, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Benny R. Odem, Jr., an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed claims in another civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court found to be improperly joined and severed into this new action. This 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 October 3, 2025, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court’s March 7 order to pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed with this case in forma pauperis. Docket No. 9. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff on the date of entry, and he is presumed to have received it. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 and n.9 (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining that where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a presumption exists that the letter reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed). Plaintiff did not file written objections or take any steps to satisfy the fee requirement to proceed with this case.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of Judge Love 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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen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. 9) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of November, 2025. G5, A Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE