Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Movement □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION NOAH CHRISTOPHER PRUETT, § Plaintiff, : V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00036 SERGEANT RALPHS, et al, :

Defendants. :

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum □□□ Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 15). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s

complaint pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and 28 USS.C. § 1915(A)(b)(1) because it is legally and factually frivolous. Jd. at 1, 15. The M&R further recommends that the dismissal of Plaintiffs case count as a “strike” for purposes of

(g).

. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been timely filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan ~ Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). The Court determines the timeliness of a document filed by a pro se inmate based on when it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing, postage pre-paid. See Houston y. Lack,

(1988).

1/2

Plaintiff filed written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 21). Plaintiff °s objections were due on August 18, 2025. See (DE. 18, >. 1-2). Plaintiffs objections are dated August 22, 2025—four □

days after the August 18 due date. (D.E. 21, p. 3). Plaintiff ‘placed his objections in the mail on September 3, 2025—sixteen days after the August 18 due date. (D.E. 21-3, p. 1). Accordingly, the objections are not timely, and the Court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Wilson,

. Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 15). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintifi?’s § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) and

(A)(b)(1) because it is legally and factually frivolous. (D.E. 1). The Court further IMPOSES a “strike” under

(g) and instructs the Clerk to send notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at [email protected]. gov. A final judgment will be entered separately. SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas November ts2025

2/2