IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

§ KEVIN JAMES KOHUTE, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-391-JDK § SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, § § Defendant. § §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Kevin Kohute, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against Defendant on October 11, 2024. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition of the action. Docket No. 2. On December 9, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 4) recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. The Report was sent to Plaintiff, and the mail was returned undeliverable. Docket No. 5. Plaintiff has not updated his address with the court in violation of the of the local rules. Loc. R. CV-11(d) (“A pro se litigant . . . is responsible for keeping the clerk advised in writing of his or her current physical address.”). Plaintiff has not filed any objections. 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. Assn,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded on other grounds by statute,

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

(5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). 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. 4) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

So ordered and signed on this ) mene JERUMY bJKERNODEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE