Frank Stutts Harris v. United States, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION FRANK STUTTS HARRIS PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:25-CV-167-DMB-JMV UNITED STATES, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER On February 24, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that this case be dismissed. Doc. #9. The R&R warned that “[f]ailure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report [within fourteen days] 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 3–4. No objections to the R&R were 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, as here, ‘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.’” Ortiz v. City of S.A. Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 735 F.3d 202, 205 n.2 (5th Cir. 2013)). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the [R&R] is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)).

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 [9] is ADOPTED as the order of this Court. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED, this 16th day of March, 2026. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE