Buckner v. West Tallahatchie School District

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

MARK S. BUCKNER, SR. PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 3:23-CV-417-DMB-RP

WEST TALLAHATCHIE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On August 19, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Mark S. Buckner, Sr.’s claims against “Ms. Berdin” and “Mr. Brownlow” be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. #51 at PageID 326–27. The R&R warned that failure to file written objections within fourteen days “shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions [in the R&R] accepted by the district court.” Id. at PageID 327 (citation omitted). No objection to the R&R was filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[P]lain error review applies where, as here, a party did not object to a magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendation to the district court despite being served with notice of the consequences of failing to object.” Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017). Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [51] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. Buckner’s claims against Berdin and Brownlow are DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 21st day of November, 2024. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE