Patterson v. Guidroz

Opinion

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

DUSTIN LEE PATTERSON PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-10-TBM-RPM

ZACH GUIDROZ, et al. DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the submission of the Report and Recommendation [50] entered by United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers on May 14, 2025. Judge Myers recommends denying as moot Defendant Garrett Douglas’ Motion to Dismiss [42], granting Defendants Zach Guidroz, Laura Stogner, and Sherrie Pendarvis’ Motion for Summary Judgment [46], and granting Defendant Garrett Douglas’ Motion for Summary Judgment [48]. Plaintiff Dustin Lee Patterson has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing an objection has expired.1 “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition (citations omitted); see Casas v. Aduddell, 404 F. App’x 879, 881 (5th Cir. 2010) (“When a party fails timely to file written objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation, that party is barred from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed findings and conclusions which the district court accepted, except for plain error”) (citing Douglass v. United Serv. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir.

1 A copy of the Report and Recommendation [50] was mailed to Patterson at the address listed on the docket on May 14, 2025. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Having considered Judge Myers’ Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and

Recommendation [50] entered by United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers on May 14, 2025, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Garrett Douglas’ Motion to Dismiss [42] is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants Zach Guidroz, Laura Stogner, and Sherrie Pendarvis’ Motion for Summary Judgment [46] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Garrett Douglas’ Motion for Summary Judgment [48] is GRANTED. THIS, the 5th day of June, 2025. _____________________________ TAYLOR B. McNEEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court dismisses Plaintiff Dustin Lee Patterson’s federal law claims WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state-law claims, so those claims are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.