Taylor v. Neal

E.D. Texas

Taylor v. Neal

District Court, E.D. Texas·Decided April 24, 2025·No. 5:24-cv-00035·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

FRANKLIN TAYLOR, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-35-RWS-JBB § JEFF NEAL, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Plaintiff Franklin Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned action complaining of alleged deprivations of his rights. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On March 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. See Docket No. 7. A copy of this report was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address but was returned as undeliverable. See Docket No. 8. Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 7) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. It 1s further ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of April, 2025.

foobert Lv e ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

FRANKLIN TAYLOR, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-35-RWS-JBB § JEFF NEAL, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Plaintiff Franklin Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned action complaining of alleged deprivations of his rights. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On March 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. See Docket No. 7. A copy of this report was sent to Plaintiff at his last known address but was returned as undeliverable. See Docket No. 8. Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 7) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. It 1s further ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of April, 2025.

foobert Lv e ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Taylor v. Neal, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Taylor v. Neal (Taylor v. Neal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related