Matthew De La Cruz v. Keefe Commissary Network

• Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION

MATTHEW DE LA CRUZ PLAINTIFF

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-60-DCB-ASH

KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK DEFENDANT ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This Matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 17] (the “Report”), regarding pro se Plaintiff Matthew De La Cruz (“Plaintiff”)’s complaint that he filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant moved to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [ECF No. 14]. Plaintiff never responded to the motion, despite Magistrate Judge Harris’s order to do so. [ECF No. 16]. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant's request for dismissal of the action with prejudice because Plaintiff’s allegations fail to show that Defendant is a state actor and fail to state a claim for violation of his constitutional rights. [ECF No. 17] at 3-7. The Court finds the recommendation to be well-taken. The Court notes that no party has filed an objection to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Where no party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and the report contains a warning about the consequences of failing to object (as this Report does), the Court is not required to

perform a de novo review of the magistrate judge's determination. In such cases, the standard of review is whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2017) (“… a party is not entitled de novo review after failing to file written objections to the magistrate judge's R&R within a certain period of time.”); see also United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (the clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law standard of review is appropriate only where there has been no objection to the magistrate's ruling). Finding no clear error in the Report and not finding it contrary to law, the Court agrees with and adopts Magistrate

Judge Harris’s recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 17] is ADOPTED as the findings and

conclusions of this Court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of March 2026.

/s/ David C. Bramlette UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE