IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

TRACI SPRINGS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 4:25-cv-403-JDK-JDL § JUDGE LINDSEY WYNNE, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Traci Springs, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against Defendants on April 21, 2025, pursuant to

. Docket No. 1. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact and conclusions of law. On July 29, 2025, Judge Love issued a report (Docket No. 23) recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex.,

(5th Cir. 1994) (discussing how, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks” on state-court judgments). The Report further concluded that Plaintiff did not carry her burden to show, under Raskin on behalf of JD v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist.,

, 285 n.5 (5th Cir. 2023), that “the child’s case is the parent’s own,”

Plaintiff consented to receive electronic notices in this case and therefore received the report on July 29, 2025, when it was docketed via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system. Docket No. 23. Plaintiff has not filed objections and the

time-frame for doing so has passed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the time to

file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not file any objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous,

abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Having reviewed Judge Love’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 23). It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Any motions pending in this case are DENIED as moot. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of September, 2025. C5, A Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE