Lara v. Martinez, M.D.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00001
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DEL RIO DIVISION

ALICIA LARA, ADMINISTRATOR § OF THE ESTATE OF MARTHA § § GARCIA DE LA LARA, § Plaintiff, § Case No.: DR:25-CV-00001-EG-MHW § v. § § ANGEL MARTINEZ, M.D., et al., § Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (the “Report and Recommendation”), ECF 26, of the Honorable Matthew Watters, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on August 15, 2025. The Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court dismiss the Amended Complaint, ECF 8, without prejudice. Plaintiff Alicia Lara asserts a claim arising from events that occurred over three years ago. (R&R 8, ECF No. 26). Lara eventually brought this claim on July 10, 2024, in the San Antonio Division of this District. (Complaint, ECF No. 4). Lara did not attempt service on Defendants before the San Antonio District Court transferred her case to the Del Rio Division. Nearly a year since filing suit—and over three years since the underlying events occurred—Lara has failed to serve Defendants despite Judge Watters providing three deadline extensions. (Order, ECF No. 14; Order Extending Deadline, ECF No. 18; Am. Notice & Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 21). The Court need not conduct a de novo review of the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Rather, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation to determine whether it is erroneous or clearly contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Upon review, the Court concludes the findings and conclusions within the Report and Recommendation are neither erroneous nor clearly contrary to law. Lesser sanctions than those recommended cannot remedy the prejudice to Defendants that Lara’s delay has caused. See Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 418 (Sth Cir. 2006). Moreover, Lara’s actions since filing suit demonstrate the futility of lesser sanctions. See Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 514 (Sth Cir. 2013). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Honorable Matthew Watters’s Report and Recommendation, ECF 26, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Alicia Lara’s Amended Complaint, ECF 8, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that the Clerk’s Office enter a clerk’s judgment closing the case. SIGNED, this 3"4 day of October 2025.

abet Gets UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE