Jack Sullivan v. Carmen Pacheco and Sergio Jimenez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION JACK SULLIVAN PLAINTIFF v. CAUSE NO. 3:26-CV-22-SA-JMV CARMEN PACHECO and SERGIO JIMENEZ DEFENDANTS ORDER DISMISSING CASE On February 18, 2026, Magistrate Judge Virden entered an Order Granting Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Recommending Dismissal [4]. In the Order [4], Magistrate Judge Virden concluded that “Plaintiff fails to provide any factual allegations that provide support for his claims or make any statement showing that he is entitled to relief. His complaint is bereft of any facts or details indicating the basis of his claim, and why those claims are properly made before this Court.” [4] at p. 2. She therefore recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Although Magistrate Judge Virden’s Order [4] explained the applicable procedure for Sullivan to object to the recommendation, Sullivan has not filed an objection, and his time to do so has now passed.

“With respect to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections were raised, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no plain error on the face of the record.”

Gauthier v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 644 F. Supp. 2d 824, 828 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996)).

The Court has reviewed the Order [4] and the record as a whole. Having done so, the Court wholly agrees with Magistrate Judge Virden’s recommendation. There is no plain error on the face of the record. The recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL.

Sullivan’s claims are hereby DISMISSED. This CASE is CLOSED.

SO ORDERED, this the 13th day of March, 2026. /s/ Sharion Aycock SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE