FILED February 20, 2025 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: NM SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DEPUTY JOHN P. JOHNSON, § Plaintiff, : v. : CIVIL NO. SA-24-CV-00863-OLG MANUEL H. NEWBURGER et al., : Defendants. : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed January 21, 2025, concerning the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Petition, Claim and Complaint in the Nature of a Suit for Damages to Property and Business Interests Under

(a), for Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Activity (Dkt. No. 1) for want of prosecution. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 8). Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendations.' FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the R&R was mailed to Plaintiff via certified mail when it was entered on January 22, 2025. (See Dkt. No. 9). The R&R was returned by the post office marked “Return to Sender,” “Unclaimed,” and “Unable to Forward” on February 14, 2025. (See Dkt. No. 11). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a change of address notice, and no objections have been filed. Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir.

' See Payne v. CPS Energy, No. SA-23-CA-1254-FB,

, at *1n.1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2024) (If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party’s last known address, ‘service is complete upon mailing.” (quoting FED. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C))).

1989); cf

(b)(1) (‘A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made.”). After such review, the Court finds that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 8) as the opinion of the Court pursuant to

(b)(1) and DISMISSES this case for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with a court order. See FED. R. CIv. P. 41(b). This case is CLOSED. Itisso ORDERED.

SIGNED this v day of February, 2025. Ove ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge