Marco Mason v. Veronica Lilly, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00284
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION MARCO MASON, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-284-JDK-KNM § VERONICA LILLY, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Marco Mason, a prisoner confined within the Texas prison system proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition of the action. The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $27.00, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Docket No. 3. Plaintiff received a copy of the order on September 8, 2025, but did not comply or show good cause for failure to do so. Docket No. 4. On November 25, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the

Court. Docket No. 5. Plaintiff received a copy of this Report on December 9, 2025, but has filed no objections. Docket No. 6. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not file any objections in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 5) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Any motions pending in this case are DENIED as moot. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of February, 2026.

JHREMYJD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE