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

HORACE GRELY DEAN, III, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:21-cv-286-JDK-JDL § OFFICER UNKNOWN AREBUCKLE § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Horace Grely Dean, an inmate of the Smith County Jail proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to

. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge, John D. Love, for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On August 25, 2021, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s civil rights lawsuit be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Docket No. 8. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff. Docket No. 18. Plaintiff did not acknowledge receipt of the Report, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained that where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a presumption exists that the letter reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada,

, 420-21 and n.9 (5th Cir. 2019). This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

(1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 8) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of November, 2021. en DY Konbe JERQMY D, RERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE