Contreras v. Car Max Auto Superstores, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JASON CONTRERAS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 5:24-CV-01115-JKP CAR MAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommenda- tion recommending this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to pros- ecute and comply with Court orders. ECF No. 6. No party filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so expired.

Any party who seeks review of all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Rec- ommendation must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If a party does not timely object to all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the District Court will review the unobjected-to proposed findings and recommendations to determine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Johnson v. Sw. Research Inst., 210 F. Supp.3d 863, 864 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (citing U.S. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. de- nied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).1 While Federal Rule 72(b) does not facially require any review in the absence of a specific objection, the advisory committee notes following its adoption in 1983 state: “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Further, failure to Consistent with § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the Court reviewed the subject Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney for clear error on the face of the record. This Court finds no such error. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s findings and recommendation and ADOPTS the Re- port and Recommendation. ECF No. 6. As recommended, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

To facilitate timely receipt of this Order, the Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to email a copy of this Order to Martin at: 1) contrerasjason745 @ gmail.com; and 2) jayc21000@ gmail.com The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to mail, via certified mail with return re- ceipt requested, a copy of this Order to: 1) Jason Contreras, 5342 La Cresenta St., San Antonio, Texas 78228 It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 2nd day of January, 2025. aden LUA Da U D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE object shall also bar appellate review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that were ultimately accepted by the district court, unless the party demonstrates plain error. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.