IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

DAQUILLIUS HENNIGAN, § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:19-CV-00190-RWS-KNM Plaintiff, §

§ v. §

§ CAPTAIN FACTRA A WARREN, SGT § REGINALD NWORKA, CAPTAIN TAD § HOWARD, COUNSEL SUB L LEVESTON, § MED ADMIN JOHN DOE, § § Defendants. §

ORDER Plaintiff DaQuillius Hennigan, an inmate confined at the Jim Ferguson Unit within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action alleging purported violations of his constitutional rights. The Court referred the case to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. Docket No. 15. Plaintiff received a copy of this report on March 11, 2020 (Docket No. 16), but filed no objections thereto. Accordingly, he is not entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc.,

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in the cause and the Magistrate Judge’s report and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s report. See United States v. Raddatz,

(1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sounds discretion of the judge warrants... .’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 275 (1976)). It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs failure to comply with an order of the Court. It is finally ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED-AS-MOOT. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of April, 2020.

foeher t+ LU Gtrivecls. G2, ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2