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

DONOVAN TANNER, § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-00449-RWS-KPJ Plaintiff, §

§ v. §

§ MEGAN J. BRENNAN, ET AL., § § Defendants. §

ORDER The above-titled and numbered action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

. On June 22, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and recommendation (the “Report”) (Docket No. 24) that Plaintiff Donovan Tanner’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Texas (Docket No. 23) be granted. Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been filed, neither party is entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except on grounds of plain error, they are barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc.,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds,

(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from 10 to 14 days). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the motion (Docket No. 23) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 24) and agrees with the Report. See United States v. Raddatz,

(1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants.’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

(1976)). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (Docket No. 24) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 23) is GRANTED and this action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of August, 2022.

Joohar f LU? febrry ectee Geo | ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2