William Andrew Kinsey, III v. Dr. Unknown Martinez, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM ANDREW KINSEY, III PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-207-KHJ-MTP DR. UNKNOWN MARTINEZ, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s [27] Report and Recommendation and Defendant Dr. Unknown Martinez’s [25] Motion to Withdraw.

R. & R. [27]; Mot. to Withdraw [25]. The [27] Report recommends dismissing without prejudice pro se Plaintiff William Andrew Kinsey, III’s (“Kinsey”) claims. [27] at 5–6. The Court adopts the [27] Report and finds as moot the [25] Motion.

Kinsey is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institute in Yazoo City, Mississippi. Am. Compl. [19-1] at 1–2. In March 2025, he sued the prison’s medical contractor and its employees for deliberate indifference to his medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence in the treatment of his hernia. at 4.

The [27] Report recommends dismissing the Section 1983 claim because Kinsey has failed to state a claim. [27] at 5. And since Kinsey is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Prison Litigation Reform Act allows the Court to dismiss his case sua sponte when it fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The [27] Report also recommends dismissing without prejudice the negligence claims because they arise under state law and are better addressed by the state courts. [27] at 5.

Written objections to the [27] Report were due by May 22, 2026. at 6.

The [27] Report notified the parties that failure to file written objections by that date would bar further appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. No party objected to the [27] Report, and the time to do so has passed.

The Court must review de novo a magistrate judge’s report only when a party objects to the report within 14 days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no party timely objects to the report, the Court applies “the ‘clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’ standard of review.” , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

Finding the [27] Report neither clearly erroneous, contrary to law, nor an abuse of discretion, the Court adopts the [27] Report, dismisses this case without prejudice, and finds as moot the [25] Motion. In doing so, 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 28th day of May, 2026.

s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE