IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

JOSE CONTRERAS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § 1:25-CV-847-RP-ML § APD, LISA DAVIS, and LELAN LARROQUE, § § Defendants. §

ORDER Before the Court is the report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane concerning Plaintiff Jose Contreras’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint pursuant to

(e), (Dkt. 1). (R. & R., Dkt. 5). Pursuant to

(b) and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Lane issued his report and recommendation on June 18, 2025. (Id.). A copy of the report and recommendation was sent by certified mail the same day, (Dkt. 6). As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the report and recommendation. Pursuant to

(b), a party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. When no objections are timely filed, a district court can review the magistrate’s report and recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Because Plaintiff has not filed timely objections, the Court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). (R. & R., Dkt. 5, at 4). The Court finds no clear error in the magistrate judge’s analysis and adopts the analysis on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims as its own order. The magistrate judge also recommends that this Court issue a pre-filing injunction barring Plaintiff from filing future suits. (Id.). Plaintiff has a history of filing frivolous suits in this Court. See Contreras v. Foye, 1:25-CV-254-RP, Dkt. 4, at 5–6 (March 7, 2025). As the magistrate judge aptly

noted, only four months ago this Court warned Plaintiff “that he may be subject to sanctions, including monetary sanctions or a pre-filing injunction barring him from filing future suits, if he continues to file frivolous claims and otherwise abuse his access to the judicial system.” See Contreras v. Foye, 1:25-CV-254-RP, Dkt. 6, at 4 (April 15, 2025). Yet, Plaintiff filed this suit less than two months later. Accordingly, the Court finds no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the Court issue a pre-filing injunction and adopts the magistrate judge’s analysis of this issue as its own order. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. 5), is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will enter final judgment by separate order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is BARRED FROM FILING complaints, removing cases, or otherwise initiating litigation in the Western District of Texas without obtaining

prior approval from a federal district or magistrate judge in the District. Plaintiff may not file anything further in this case except, if he chooses, a notice of appeal (subject to the limits imposed by

(c)–(d) and Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

, 711–12 (1996)) IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff via certified mail. SIGNED on August 6, 2025.

ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE