FOR THET EEAXSATREKRANN DAI SDTIVRIISCITO ONF TEXAS § NICHOLAS SMITH § § Plaintiff § § v. § Civil Action No. 5:20-CV-69-RWS § FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, § ET AL. § Defendants § ORDER This case was severed into an individual civil rights lawsuit from a larger suit filed by 17 inmates. Docket No. 1. At that time, Plaintiff was ordered to (1) file his own complaint in this new action and (2) pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 3. Plaintiff, however, failed to respond in any way to this order, and the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Docket No. 4. Plaintiff received a copy of this Report but filed no objections or otherwise contacted the Court. Docket No. 5. Because Plaintiff filed no objections to the report, he is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc.,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the pleadings and Magistrate Judge’s report. Upon its review, the Court has determined the Magistrate Judge is correct. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 4) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. It is further ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are DENIED- AS-MOOT. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of January, 2023.

Je Doher LU? frerrs ectsee. □□□ = ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2