Brady v. D.A. Intake, 24097633

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CHRISTOPHER T. BRADY, § Plaintiff § § SA-25-CV-00278-XR -vs- § § D.A. INTAKE, #24097633, D.A. § INVESTIGATOR, #1162630, SHERIFF § JAVIER SALAZAR, CHIEF WILLIAM § MCMANUS, SAN ANTONIO POLICE § DEPARTMENT; AND MAGISTRATE § JUDGE, § Defendants § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this date the Court considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) in the above-numbered case, filed May 8, 2025 2024 (ECF No. 6), recommending that this case be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and failure to follow a court order. After careful consideration, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Christopher T. Brady, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to proceed IFP and proposed Complaint on March 14, 2025. ECF No. 1. Judge Chestney granted his motion to proceed IFP and screened Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 3 at 2. Judge Chestney found nearly all his claims meritless, but ordered Plaintiff to file a More Definite Statement regarding his malicious prosecution claim. ECF No. 3 at 4–8. Plaintiff’s More Definite Statement was due by April 25, 2025, but Plaintiff failed to file one.

Accordingly, Judge Chestney recommended this case be dismissed for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 4.

ANALYSIS Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file his or her written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff was mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation via Certified Mail on May 9, 2025, ECF No. 7, and acknowledged receipt on May 14, 2025, ECF No. 9. To date, no objections have been filed with the Court.

Because Plaintiff has not timely objected to the Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 objection is made.”).

The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and finds it to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Judge Chestney’s Report and Recommendation in all respects.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution and failure to follow a court order. A final judgment under Rule 58 will issue separately.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE THIS CASE.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 5th day of June, 2025.

XAVIER RODRIGUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE