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

BOBBY MICHAEL DENNIS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-241-JDK-JDL § THE STATE OF TEXAS, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Bobby Michael Dennis, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against Defendants on June 30, 2025. 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 1, 2025, the Court issued a deficiency order informing Plaintiff that he must either pay the $405.00 filing fee or file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in order to proceed with this action. Docket No. 4. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply with the Court’s order may result in dismissal of the lawsuit. Id. More than thirty days passed after Plaintiff received a copy of the Court’s order and the IFP application, and Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order. On August 12, 2025, Judge Love issued a report recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any order of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh,

(5th Cir. 1988); FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Plaintiff consented to receive electronic notices in this case and therefore

received the report on August 12, 2025, when it was docketed via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system. Docket No. 7. 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(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,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. 7). 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 8th day of September, 2025. C5, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE