Bamburg v. Bell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:20-cv-00452 Samuel X. Bamburg, Plaintiff, V. Lt. Unknown Bell et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Samuel X. Bamburg, proceeding pro se, filed this civil- rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. Doc. 3.

In response to plaintiff □□ complaint, defendant Lt. Unknown Bell filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. 36. Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition, nor did he file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B).

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (Doc.

38) recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 36) be granted and plaintiff ’s claims against Lt. Bell be dismissed with prej- udice. Plaintiff received the report on January 31, 2022, (Doc. 43) but did not file objections.

When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. Douglass »v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Defendant Lt. Bell’s motion to dis- miss (Doc. 36) is granted. Plaintiff’s claims against Lt. Bell are dis- missed with prejudice.

So ordered by the court on March 3, 2022.

J. “CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge -2-