UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

BERT D.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. SA-22-CV-00271-JKP

CHRISTOPHER VILLA SR., CHRIS- TOPHER VILLA JR., TINA GARZA, DANIEL GARZA, ANTONIO GARZA, FRANK GOMEZ, SAPD, FIESTA GROCERIES, ANDYS UPHOLSTERY SHOP, CHRISSY GARZA, UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, A-Z, CHRISSY TIRE SHOP,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation in which he recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or failure to apply for in forma pauperis status and for failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. ECF Nos. 4,5. In his Order to Show Cause, Judge Bemporad required Plaintiff to either pay the full fil- ing fee or submit an application to proceed IFP accompanied by the affidavit required by § 1915 on or before May 31, 2022. ECF No. 4. Judge Bemporad also required Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed under§ 1915(e) by filing an amended complaint plainly stating a claim for relief against Defendants and specifying the relief requested and in- cluding a short and plain statement of the grounds for federal court jurisdiction. Id. Judge Bem- porad cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Show Cause Order could result in dis- missal for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the orders of this Court. Id. Plaintiff did not reply to Judge Bemporad’s Show Cause Order and did not pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed IFP and supporting affidavit. Consequently, Judge Bem-

porad issued a Report and Recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Plain- tiff did not file any objection to Judge Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so expired. Instead, two days after the deadline to file objections, Plaintiff filed a Mo- tion for Protective Order and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which did not in- clude the full affidavit to support the application and did not include a notary verification. Any party who seeks review of all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Rec- ommendation must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy.

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If a party does not timely object to all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the District Court

will review the unobjected-to proposed findings and recommendations to determine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Johnson v. Sw. Research Inst., 210 F. Supp.3d 863, 864 (W.D. Tex. 2016)(citing U.S. v. Wilson,

(5th Cir.)(per curiam), cert. denied,

(1989). Consistent with § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the Court reviewed the subject Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Bemporad for clear error on the face of the record. This Court finds no such clear error. Plaintiff did not submit a complete application and affidavit to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Bemporad’s findings and recommendation and ADOPTS the Report and Rec- ommendation. For the reasons stated by Judge Bemporad, the case shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 27th day of June, 2022. C\ NA p |} / ASN VAALLANV\ JASON PULLIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE