Crosslin v. Hill

District Court, E.D. Texas

Crosslin v. Hill

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

STACY CROSSLIN § § V. § No. 5:24CV104-RWS-JBB § KEANNON HILL AND AMENTUM § SERVICES, INC. §

ORDER

The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

. On January 7, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending Plaintiff’s above-entitled and numbered cause of action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process. Docket No. 7. Plaintiff Stacy Crosslin, proceeding pro se, received a copy of this Report via electronic notice on January 7, 2025, but filed no objections. See Docket No. 3. Because no objections have been received, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas,

858 F.3d 348, 352

(5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203- RAS,

2021 WL 3287683

, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, is of the opinion the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. See United States v. Wilson,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

492 U.S. 918

(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’’). Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s above-entitled and numbered cause of action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect service of process.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of January, 2025.

foeher t+ LU Ctrrvechs. G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown