James Odom v. Kim Sung et al.

E.D. Texas

James Odom v. Kim Sung et al.

DecidedJanuary 23, 2026

Docket6:23-cv-00580

StatusUnknown

This text of James Odom v. Kim Sung et al. (James Odom v. Kim Sung et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Odom v. Kim Sung et al., (E.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00580 James Odom, Plaintiff, V. Kim Sung et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, a former inmate of Gregg County Jail, filed this law- suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who ordered plaintiff to either pay the initial fil- ing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. After plaintiff failed to comply with that order, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has not objected to the report or oth- erwise communicated with the court since filing the complaint. When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis- fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find- ings and recommendations. The case is dismissed without preju- dice for failure to comply with a court order. The statute of limi- tations is suspended for a period of thirty days from the date of final judgment. See Campbell v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 798, 801 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “where further litigation of a claim will be time-barred, a dismissal without prejudice is no less severe a sanction than a dismissal with prejudice” (cleaned up)). Any pending motions are denied as moot.

-l-

So ordered by the court on January 23, 2026. feeb BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00580 James Odom, Plaintiff, V. Kim Sung et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, a former inmate of Gregg County Jail, filed this law- suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who ordered plaintiff to either pay the initial fil- ing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. After plaintiff failed to comply with that order, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has not objected to the report or oth- erwise communicated with the court since filing the complaint. When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis- fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find- ings and recommendations. The case is dismissed without preju- dice for failure to comply with a court order. The statute of limi- tations is suspended for a period of thirty days from the date of final judgment. See Campbell v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 798, 801 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “where further litigation of a claim will be time-barred, a dismissal without prejudice is no less severe a sanction than a dismissal with prejudice” (cleaned up)). Any pending motions are denied as moot.

-l-

So ordered by the court on January 23, 2026. feeb BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

James Odom v. Kim Sung et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-odom-v-kim-sung-et-al-txed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack