Leroy Alfonso Joseph v. District Attorney Joe Gonzales, D.A. Leslie Kelsey,...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

LEROY ALFONSO JOSEPH, Plaintiff Case No. SA-25-CV-01180-JKP v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOE GONZALES, D.A. LESLIE KELSEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY CASSANDRA ROSALES, JUDGE KEVIN O'CONNELL, DISTRICT JUDGE MELISSA SKINNER, DISTRICT JUDGE JOEL PEREZ, CHIEF OF POLICE WILLIAM MCMANUS, SEX OFFENDER REGISTER OFFICER DAVID BIERMAN, CHIEF SHERIFF JAVIER SALAZAR, PROBATION OFFICER HERBERT CROMWELL, Defendants

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation. ECF No.4. The Magistrate Judge recommends this Court Plaintiff’s pro se application to proceed without paying costs, but dismiss this action based upon Plaintiff’s failure to state a non-frivolous claim for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Id. No party filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so expired.

Any party who seeks review of all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If a party does not timely object to all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the District Court will review the unobjected-to proposed findings and recommendations to determine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Johnson v. Sw. Research Inst., 210 F. Supp.3d 863, 864 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (citing U.S. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.)(per curiam), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).

Consistent with § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the Court reviewed the subject Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney for clear error on the face of the record. This Court finds no such error.

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s findings and recommendation and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. As recommended, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for Plaintiff's failure to state a non-frivolous claim or any claim on which relief may be granted.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

A separate final judgment will follow.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 4th day of November, 2025.

Coe Ne) y pi) ALDSEN. VXALLANV\ JASON PULLIA NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE While Federal Rule 72(b) does not facially require any review in the absence of a specific objection, the advisory committee notes following its adoption in 1983 state: “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Further, failure to object shall also bar appellate review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that were ultimately accepted by the district court, unless the party demonstrates plain error. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S, 140, 150-53 (1985); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.