Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 0, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan □□□□□□□ clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MARCUS DOWNIE, § Plaintiff, VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00287 HERRMAN AND HERRMAN, ef al., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchell Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 18). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs complaint (D.E. 1), pursuant to the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (D.E. 18); see

(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b)(1). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See

(b)(1); FED. R. Clv. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding 1/2

that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 18). Accordingly, Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (D-E. 1). SO ORDERED. \ S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas May Gt , 2022

2/2