Elizabeth Duffy v. Shahabuddeen A. Ally, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION ELIZABETH DUFFY PLAINTIFF v. CAUSE NO. 3:26-CV-137-SA-RP SHAHABUDDEEN A. ALLY, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER DISMISSING CASE On June 2, 2026, Magistrate Judge Percy entered a Report and Recommendation [4], wherein he recommended that this case “be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” [4] at p. 2. Although the Report and Recommendation [4] explained the applicable procedure for Duffy to object to the recommendation, Duffy has not filed an objection, and the time to do so has now passed.1 “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 Report and Recommendation [4] and the record as a whole.

Having done so, the Court wholly agrees with Magistrate Judge Percy’s recommendation. There is no plain error on the face of the record. The recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL.

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

SO ORDERED this the 17th day of June, 2026. /s/ Sharion Aycock SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In fact, the Clerk of Court mailed the Report and Recommendation [4] to the address Duffy provided, and it was returned as undeliverable.