Jacob v. Brown

N.D. Mississippi

Jacob v. Brown

DecidedJune 2, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00030

StatusUnknown

This text of Jacob v. Brown (Jacob v. Brown) 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

Jacob v. Brown, (N.D. Miss. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

EVELYN W. JACOB PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:25-CV-30-DMB-JMV

GREENWOOD LEFLORE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On April 7, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Evelyn W. Jacob’s case be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. #11. The R&R warned Jacob that “[h]er failure to file written objections to the [R&R] within (14) fourteen days … shall bar her, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court.” Id. at 7. No objections to the R&R were filed.1 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 a party did not object to a magistrate judge’s finding of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendation to the district court’ despite being ‘served with notice of the consequences of failing to object.’” Quintero v. State of Tex. – Health and Hum. Servs. Comm’n, No. 22-50916, 2023 WL 5236785, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2023) (citation omitted). “[W]here there is no

1 On April 22—after the objection deadline—Jacob filed a 57-page compilation of various documents, with no explanation as to its purpose or relevance. Doc. #12. Because such consists of irrelevant information or documents filed before the R&R’s issuance, see generally id., the filing cannot, and will not, be deemed an objection to the R&R, even if timely filed. 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 [11] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. This

case is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of June, 2025. /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

EVELYN W. JACOB PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:25-CV-30-DMB-JMV

GREENWOOD LEFLORE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On April 7, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Evelyn W. Jacob’s case be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. #11. The R&R warned Jacob that “[h]er failure to file written objections to the [R&R] within (14) fourteen days … shall bar her, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court.” Id. at 7. No objections to the R&R were filed.1 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 a party did not object to a magistrate judge’s finding of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendation to the district court’ despite being ‘served with notice of the consequences of failing to object.’” Quintero v. State of Tex. – Health and Hum. Servs. Comm’n, No. 22-50916, 2023 WL 5236785, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2023) (citation omitted). “[W]here there is no

1 On April 22—after the objection deadline—Jacob filed a 57-page compilation of various documents, with no explanation as to its purpose or relevance. Doc. #12. Because such consists of irrelevant information or documents filed before the R&R’s issuance, see generally id., the filing cannot, and will not, be deemed an objection to the R&R, even if timely filed. 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 [11] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. This

case is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of June, 2025. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jacob v. Brown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacob-v-brown-msnd-2025.

Opinion

V. NO. 4:25-CV-30-DMB-JMV

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack