FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION § JOHN A. MILLER § § Plaintiff § § v. § Case No. 5:21-cv-139 § (Consolidated with 5:21-cv-127, NICK CARR, ET AL. § 5:22-cv-11, and 5:22-cv-103) § Defendants § §

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff John A. Miller, proceeding pro se but not in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled civil actions complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The lawsuits have been consolidated and referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with

. In January of 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued an order explaining that it was Plaintiff’s obligation to effect service of process and setting out how to so. Docket No. 27. Process was issued and summons forms were provided to Plaintiff along with the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

.1 Plaintiff was advised that if service was not effected within 90 days, any defendant not served could be dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice.

When no service was forthcoming, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on November 14, 2023, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service of process. Docket No. 35. Plaintiff received a copy of this Report on November 29, 2023, but filed no objections. Docket No. 36. Accordingly, Plaintiff 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

1 Summons forms were provided for each Defendant in each of the consolidated cases (5:21-cv-139, 5:21-cv-127, 5:22- cv-11, and 5:22-cv-103). the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas,

(Sth Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203- RAS,

, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in these causes and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir.), cert. denied,

(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 35) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil actions are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). It is further ORDERED that the statute of limitations is suspended for a period of 30 days following the date of entry of final judgment.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of January, 2024.

[Dohert LU Llrpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2