Ghally v. CVS Rx Services, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

EMAD GHALLY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. SA-22-CV-01119-JKP

CVS RX SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) entered in the above-captioned case. See ECF No. 14. The parties filed no objections to the R&R and the deadline to do so has passed. Judge Chestney recommends the Court dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. After due consideration, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 14) and DISMISSES this case for failure to prosecute. In a case such as this, where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether they are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). The Court reviewed the R&R and found it to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. See ECF No. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff. See ECF No. 16. Counsel informs the Court they internally closed this case on September 24, 2023 because the client ceased communication. Counsel offers no explanation for why they waited more than seven months later, on May 2, 2024, after Judge Chestney entered her R&R recommending dismissal of the case, to inform the Court of their client’s lack of communication. Counsel further offers no evidence they informed the client of their intent to withdraw. “An attorney may withdraw from representation only upon leave of the court and a showing of good cause and reasonable notice to the client.” Matter of Wynn, 889 F.2d 644, 646 (Sth Cir. 1989). The motion is, therefore, denied. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE THIS CASE. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 10th day of June, 2024.

Oaaen LUDA U D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE