FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION TAMARA KAY FULMER-STEWART, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-CV-415-FB § MELODY WOOSLEY and PATRICK § STECK, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in the above-captioned cause on June 10, 2025 (docket #13), concerning Plaintiff Tamara Kay Fulmer-Stewart’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and proposed civil complaint. According to the CM/ECF system, the Report and Recommendation sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, was received by the Plaintiff on June 14, 2025 (docket #16). To date, the docket reflects no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 In the Report, United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney recommends that this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders. Magistrate Judge Chestney explains that in the order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepaying court fees or costs, she ordered Plaintiff to file a More Definite Statement, to 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation.

(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party's last known address, “service is complete upon mailing .” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is made by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.”

at (E). When the mode of service is by electronic means, three days are no longer added to the time period to act after being served. See Heverling v. McNeil Consumer Pharmaceuticals, Co., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-1433,

at *2 n.3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2018) (“On April 28, 2016, the Supreme Court adopted changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In pertinent part, the Court amended Rule 6(d) to remove ‘electronic means’ as a mode of service triggering an include answers to three specific questions on or before May 21, 2025, because she was unable to determine, based on Plaintiff's Proposed Complaint, the basis of Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. Order dated April 21, 2025, docket entry number 3 at pages 3-4. Although Plaintiff filed an Advisory and two motions after the April 21, 2025 order, Plaintiff did not include a More Definite Statement, answer the specific questions posed by Judge Chestney, or otherwise respond to the order to provide the Court with more information about her claims in the any of her filings nor did she file a More Definite Statement as ordered, and to date, has not complied with the Court’s order. Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See

(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and finds its reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir.), cert. denied,

(1989). The Recommendation shall therefore be accepted pursuant to

(b)(1) such this case should be Plaintiff's case should be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a Court order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on June 10, 2025 (docket #13), is ACCEPTED pursuant to

(b)(1) such that Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a Court order. Motions pending, if any, are DISMISSED AS MOOT, and this case is now CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 6th of August, 2025. < jeer C Se FRED BI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE