April 08, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

TIMOTHY M. § CIVIL ACTION NO WILLIAMS and § 4:22-cv-03398 CAMERON M. § WILLIAMS, § Plaintiffs, § § § vs. § Judge Charles Eskridge § § UBER § TECHNOLOGIES INC, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on September 26, 2022, alleging claims for personal injuries sustained in an auto accident while passengers in a vehicle driven by an Uber driver. Dkt 1. The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 12. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan dated March 3, 2025. Dkt 74. She recommends that the stay of this case be lifted, the ruling of the arbitrator that Plaintiffs take nothing on their claims be affirmed, and this case be dismissed with prejudice. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) &

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc,

(5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association,

(5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). None of the parties filed objections. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 74. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This is a FINAL JUDGMENT. SO ORDERED. Signed on April 7, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Z. Hon. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge