Smith v. Baxter Healthcare

Opinion

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

JOSHUA ANTWONE SMITH PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:24-CV-51-DMB-JMV

BAXTER HEALTHCARE DEFENDANT

ORDER

On January 27, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this case be dismissed. Doc. #10. The R&R warned that “objections are required to be in writing and must be filed within fourteen days” and “[f]ailure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in [the R&R] will bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court.” Id. at PageID 24–25. No objection to the R&R was filed. 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 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.” Quintero v. State of Texas – Health and Hum. Servs. Comm’n, No. 22-50916, 2023 WL 5236785, at *2 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2023) (cleaned up). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017). Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [10] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 11th day of February, 2025. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE