Gregory Chambers, Jr. v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety; The City of Flora Mississippi; The City of Yazoo Mississippi

N.D. Mississippi

Gregory Chambers, Jr. v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety; The City of Flora Mississippi; The City of Yazoo Mississippi

DecidedMarch 23, 2026

Docket4:26-cv-00012

StatusUnknown

This text of Gregory Chambers, Jr. v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety; The City of Flora Mississippi; The City of Yazoo Mississippi (Gregory Chambers, Jr. v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety; The City of Flora Mississippi; The City of Yazoo Mississippi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gregory Chambers, Jr. v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety; The City of Flora Mississippi; The City of Yazoo Mississippi, (N.D. Miss. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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

GREGORY CHAMBERS, JR. PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:26-CV-12-DMB-DAS

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; THE CITY OF FLORA MISSISSIPPI; THE CITY OF YAZOO MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On March 3, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that this case be transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi. Doc. #6. The R&R warned that “[f]ailure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report within 14 days from the date of filing will bar an aggrieved party from challenging on appeal both the proposed factual findings and the proposed legal conclusions accepted by the district court.” Id. No objections to the R&R were 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 S.A. Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 735 F.3d 202, 205 n.2 (5th Cir. 2013)). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the [R&R] is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)). Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [6] is ADOPTED as the order of this Court. This case and its entire record is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of March, 2026. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

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

GREGORY CHAMBERS, JR. PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:26-CV-12-DMB-DAS

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; THE CITY OF FLORA MISSISSIPPI; THE CITY OF YAZOO MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On March 3, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that this case be transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi. Doc. #6. The R&R warned that “[f]ailure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report within 14 days from the date of filing will bar an aggrieved party from challenging on appeal both the proposed factual findings and the proposed legal conclusions accepted by the district court.” Id. No objections to the R&R were 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 S.A. Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 735 F.3d 202, 205 n.2 (5th Cir. 2013)). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the [R&R] is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)). Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [6] is ADOPTED as the order of this Court. This case and its entire record is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of March, 2026. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gregory Chambers, Jr. v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety; The City of Flora Mississippi; The City of Yazoo Mississippi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-chambers-jr-v-mississippi-department-of-public-safety-the-city-msnd-2026.

Opinion

V. NO. 4:26-CV-12-DMB-DAS

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack