IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ROBERT C. CARR, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § CASE NO. 6:23-CV-492-JDK-KNM DAVID BOWEN, et al., § § Defendants. § § § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Robert C. Carr, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled lawsuit on October 2, 2023. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. On November 15, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 6. Rule 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action sua sponte for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. McCullough v. Lynaugh,

(5th Cir. 1988). The Court’s ability to do so “has generally been considered an ‘inherent power[.]’” Link v. Wabash R. Co.,

(1962) (internal citations omitted). A copy of this Report was sent by certified mail to the address provided by Plaintiff. It was returned to the Court with the notation “Insufficient Address, Unable to Forward.” Docket No. 10. No written objections have been received. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not file objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and her conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

(1989) (holding that the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 6) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of January, 2024. Gen D Kobe JERQMY D, KERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE