Bowling v. United States Department of Justice

E.D. Texas

Bowling v. United States Department of Justice

DecidedSeptember 15, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00732

StatusUnknown

This text of Bowling v. United States Department of Justice (Bowling v. United States Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowling v. United States Department of Justice, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION § ASHLEY DEAN BOWLING, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-732-RWS-JBB § UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF § JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS UNKNOWN § (NSA, FBI, DHS, et al.), § § Defendants. § §

ORDER Before the Court is the August 19, 2025 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 6), which contains his proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of this case. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff Ashley Dean Bowling, proceeding pro se, received the Report and Recommendation via electronic notification on August 19, 2025. See Docket No. 4. Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation. Because no objections have been filed, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e review for plain error any of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and to which Appellants failed to object.”). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. After review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 1s correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of September, 2025.

[ache t+ LO Clrreche. □□□ ROBERT W. SCHROEDER II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION § ASHLEY DEAN BOWLING, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-732-RWS-JBB § UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF § JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS UNKNOWN § (NSA, FBI, DHS, et al.), § § Defendants. § §

ORDER Before the Court is the August 19, 2025 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 6), which contains his proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of this case. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff Ashley Dean Bowling, proceeding pro se, received the Report and Recommendation via electronic notification on August 19, 2025. See Docket No. 4. Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation. Because no objections have been filed, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e review for plain error any of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and to which Appellants failed to object.”). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. After review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 1s correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of September, 2025.

[ache t+ LO Clrreche. □□□ ROBERT W. SCHROEDER II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bowling v. United States Department of Justice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowling-v-united-states-department-of-justice-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack