Souther District of Texas ENTERED April 25, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ROGER HEARD ALEXANDER, § Plaintiff, ; Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00306 JOSE R ALEMAN, ef al., Defendants. ; ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDA & RECOMMENDATIONS Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memoranda and Recommendations (““M&R”). (D.E. 14; DE 21). The first M&R recommends that Plaintiff's claims against Nicolas R. Pecot be dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff's excessive use of force and deliberate indifference claims against Lt. Jose R. Aleman (“Lt. Aleman”) and Capt. Consuelo Benavides-Martinez (“Capt. Benavides”) in their individual capacity be retained, Plaintiff's negligence claims against Lt. Aleman and Capt. Benavides be dismissed, Plaintiff's claims for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff's remaining claims be dismissed with prejudice. (D.E. 14, p. 15, 21), After Plaintiff failed to pursue this action by not updating his address and failing to show cause, see (D.E. 17, p. 1-2), Judge Libby issued a second M&R, (D-E. 21). This subsequent M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's case for want of prosecution. (D.E. 21, p. 2). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&Rs. See

(b)(1); FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b); General Order 1/2

No. 2002-13. No objection—to either M&R—has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&Rs are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp.,

, 743-44 (8.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&Rs are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&Rs in their entirety. (D.E. 14; D.E. 21). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See (D.E. 1); see also United States v. Carter,

, 692 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (explaining a trial court may dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute), All claims in this action are DISMISSED. A final judgment will be entered separately. SO ORDERED.

. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus 255024

2/2