Jaminson Davis v. Matt Express, Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION JAMINSON DAVIS PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-12-KHJ-MTP MATT EXPRESS, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s [43] Report and Recommendation. For the reasons below, the Court adopts the [43] Report and dismisses all claims against Third-Party Defendant Ivan Guadalupe Maya Cortez (“Cortez”) without prejudice.

The [43] Report recommends that the Court dismiss all claims against Cortez under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because neither Plaintiff Jaminson Davis nor Third-Party Plaintiffs Matt Express, Inc. and Sammy Phillips, Jr. have served Cortez with process. R&R [43] at 1–3. Written objections to the [43] Report were due by January 29, 2026. . at 3. The [43] Report notified the parties that failure to timely object would bar further appeal. . No party objected to the [43] Report, and the time to do so has expired.

When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s report, the Court need not review it de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Instead, the Court can apply the clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion, and contrary to law standards of review. , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

The Court finds that the [43] Report is not clearly erroneous, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. So the Court adopts the [43] Report as the opinion of this Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court adopts the [43] Report and dismisses the claims against Cortez without prejudice.

The Court also finds that this action presents more than one claim for relief and involves multiple parties. There is no reason for delay in entering final judgment as to all claims against Cortez. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court directs and ORDERS that a Final Judgment is entered as to the claims against Cortez.

The Court has considered all arguments. Any issues the Court did not address would not have altered the Court’s decision.

SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of February, 2026. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE