UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00128 James E. Sykes, Plaintiff, V. John Doe a/k/a “OJ” et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Jus- tice proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action un- der

. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that plaintiff’s property-loss claims and his claims against defendants Lilly, Hyatt, and Carmichael be dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 5 at 7. Plaintiff received this report but did not file objections within the time per- mitted. Doc. 8. When parties fail to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment; see also 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(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds,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 objections from ten to fourteen days). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being sat- isfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims for loss or deprivation of personal property and all claims against defendants Lilly, Hyatt, and Carmichael are dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2).

-l-

So ordered by the court on September 16, 2025.

ji ‘CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-