UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 16, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

SIDNEY MAURICE THOMPSON, IV, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00107 § NUECES COUNTY JAIL, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On September 16, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (M&R, D.E. 12), recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. 9) be denied as moot. Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. The notice has been returned as undeliverable. It appears that Plaintiff is no longer housed at the Nueces County Jail and Plaintiff has not apprised the Court of any new address. No objections to the M&R have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

(Sth Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 12), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. ORDERED on October 16, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2