IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION § HAROLD OKEITH HAGLER, #42055, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:22-cv-42-JDK-KNM § MICHAEL B. LEWIS, et al., § § Defendants. § § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Harold Okeith Hagler, a Gregg County Jail inmate proceeding pro so, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to

. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. On March 22, 2022, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court administratively close Plaintiff’s case until Plaintiff’s pending criminal charges are resolved. Docket No. 10. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff, but no objections have been filed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service 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(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,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 the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

(5th 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. 10) as the findings of this Court. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s civil rights lawsuit is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Plaintiff may ask the Court to reopen this case if and when the criminal charges are resolved in his favor. If Plaintiff is convicted or the criminal charges are finally resolved against him, then the case will be dismissed. The case will also be dismissed

if the Court does not hear from Plaintiff within two years from the entry of this order administratively closing the case. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed not to accept any motions or other documents for filing in this case other than a motion to reopen or other notification of change of status—such as a change of address or notice of appearance by counsel. Finally, it is ORDERED that all pending motions in this case are terminated pending reopening of the case.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of May, 2022. C5, J. Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE