UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00092 Kenneth Huston, Plaintiff, V. Unknown McNeil et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Kenneth Huston, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magis- trate judge pursuant to

(b). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the court grant defendant Pierson’s amended motion to dis- miss (Doc. 18), grant defendant McNeil’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 27), and dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. 28 at 17. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of that report and recommen- dation on June 13, 2025. Doc. 29. Plaintiff did not file objections. The time for doing so has passed. See U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Wal- den,

, 320 (5th Cir. 2024) (“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party has 14 days to file objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge.”). When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. Douglass vy. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds,

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objec- tions from ten to fourteen days). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and being sat- isfied it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and

-l-

recommendations. Defendant Pierson and defendant McNeil’s motions to dismiss (Docs. 18, 27) are granted. Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on August 19, 2025. [lacked BARKER United States District Judge

-2-