Ted Taylor v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

TED TAYLOR PLAINTIFF

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-35-KHJ-RPM

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF DEFENDANT HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers Jr.’s [9] Report and Recommendation. R. & R. [9]. The [9] Report recommends dismissing without prejudice pro se Plaintiff Ted Taylor’s (“Taylor”) [1] Complaint. . at 1. For the reasons below, the Court adopts the [9] Report and dismisses this case. Taylor sues several state agencies and officials for subjecting him to child support orders and denying him a passport without proper notice. Compl. [1] at 2. He says these actions violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. at 2–3. As relief, he wants the Court to enjoin these state defendants from “enforcing any child support orders or administrative penalties” against him. at 3. He also asks the Court to enjoin passport denial certifications, order a hearing on these enforcement actions and an accounting of funds seized, and awards costs for pursuing this action. at 3–4. Taylor obtained in forma pauperis status, so the Magistrate Judge screened his [1] Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Order [8]; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The [9] Report recommends dismissing Taylor’s [1] Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the doctrine. [9] at 1–2. In the alternative, the [9] Report says the Court should “abstain from

exercising jurisdiction[] because Plaintiff alleges there are ‘pending appeals’ related to the subject child support orders.” at 2. Written objections to the [9] Report were due by July 21, 2026. . at 7. The [9] Report notified Taylor that failure to file written objections by that date would bar further appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. . And Taylor did not object to the [9] Report. In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews the

[9] Report under a “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion, and contrary to law” standard of review. , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citation modified). And the Court need not “reiterate the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.” , 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Finding the [9] Report neither clearly erroneous, contrary to law, nor an abuse of discretion, the Court ADOPTS it and DISMISSES this case without

prejudice. The Court has considered all arguments raised. Those arguments not addressed would not have altered the Court’s decision. The Court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this Order. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of July, 2026. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE