Iamman R. Sampson v. Lyft, Inc.

Opinion

December 15, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IAMMAN R. SAMPSON, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-00786 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § LYFT, INC., § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Iamman R. Sampson proceeds here pro se. This action was referred to Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed for failure to prosecute the case. See Dkt 24. Specifically, it finds dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff (i) hasn’t requested entry of default against Defendant despite Defendant’s failure to appear, and (ii) failed to file his amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline, even after receiving leave to amend. Id at 2. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). Plaintiff did not file objections. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and_ consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 24. The complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt 1. This is a FINAL JUDGMENT. SO ORDERED. Signed on December 10, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Honorable Charles sledge United States District Judge