Hailey Taylor v. Rick Preciado, et al.

N.D. Mississippi

Hailey Taylor v. Rick Preciado, et al.

DecidedMay 14, 2026

Docket3:23-cv-00401

StatusUnknown

This text of Hailey Taylor v. Rick Preciado, et al. (Hailey Taylor v. Rick Preciado, et al.) 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

Hailey Taylor v. Rick Preciado, et al., (N.D. Miss. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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

HAILEY TAYLOR PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 3:23-CV-401-DMB-RP

RICK PRECIADO, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On April 20, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that this case be dismissed. Doc. #143. The R&R warned that “[a] party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a magistrate judge’s [R&R] within 14 days after being served with a copy bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, … and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accept[ed] by the district court.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). 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 San Antonio 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 that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [143] is ADOPTED as the order of this Court. This case is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED, this 14th day of May, 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 OXFORD DIVISION

HAILEY TAYLOR PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 3:23-CV-401-DMB-RP

RICK PRECIADO, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On April 20, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that this case be dismissed. Doc. #143. The R&R warned that “[a] party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a magistrate judge’s [R&R] within 14 days after being served with a copy bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, … and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accept[ed] by the district court.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). 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 San Antonio 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 that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [143] is ADOPTED as the order of this Court. This case is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED, this 14th day of May, 2026.

/s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hailey Taylor v. Rick Preciado, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hailey-taylor-v-rick-preciado-et-al-msnd-2026.

Opinion

V. NO. 3:23-CV-401-DMB-RP

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack