Southern District of Texas ENTERED February 13, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION SANTIAGO LOPEZ-CHAVEZ, § § Petitioner, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00135 § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Amended Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 8). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s case for want of prosecution. /d. at 2. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See

(b)(1); FED. R. Crv. 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); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp.,

, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 8). Accordingly, Petitioner’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice. (D.E. 1).

1/2

SO ORDERED.

DAVID,S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas February 13, 2022

2/2