Lucy Clark v. Michael Rosenthal and Kevin McClanahan

• Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
• Decided: May 18, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00102
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

LUCY CLARK PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 3:26-CV-102-DMB-RP

MICHAEL ROSENTHAL and KEVIN MCCLANAHAN DEFENDANTS

ORDER On April 29, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Lucy Clark’s complaint be dismissed.1 Doc. #4. 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 2 (emphasis in original). 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

1 The same day Clark filed her complaint, she filed a motion to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Doc. #2. 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 [4] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.2

SO ORDERED, this 18th day of May, 2026. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Consequently, Clark’s motion to proceed without prepaying fees or costs is terminated.