IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, § § § Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-142-RWS-KPJ § v. § § USA AUTO PROTECTION, LLC, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER The above-titled and numbered action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

. On October 17, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and recommendation that Plaintiff Craig Cunningham’s claims against Defendants John/Jane Does 1–5 should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Docket No. 122. 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(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds,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 ten to fourteen days). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report (Docket No. 122) and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. 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 ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 122) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants John/Jane Does 1-5 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of January, 2023.

foohert LU lrivechs. G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2