IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

LAUREN B. PENA, § No. 1:25-CV-1327-DAE § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § JOSE GARZA, in his official capacity § as District Attorney of Travis County, § Texas; TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT § ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, § § Defendants. § ________________________________ §

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) (Dkt. # 6) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane. Plaintiff Lauren B. Pena (“Plaintiff” or “Pena”) did not file any objections.1 After reviewing the Report, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lane’s recommendations and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. # 6.) Judge Lane recommended that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed on the basis that she has failed to demonstrate she has standing to bring her claims against

1 The Clerk’s Office attempted to serve the Report on Plaintiff by certified mail on two separate occasions. (Dkts. ## 7, 8.) Travis County, the only entity that can be sued in this case. (Dkt. # 6 at 4–5.) Additionally, Judge Lane determined that the political question doctrine would

prevent the Court from reaching her claims, which would leave the Court with no jurisdiction over any federal claims in this case and thus no jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Judge Lane recommended that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed

without prejudice. (Id. at 6.) Objections to the Report were due within 14 days after being served with a copy. None of the parties in this case filed any objections. Accordingly, where, as here, none of the parties objected to the

Magistrate Judge’s findings, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989). After careful consideration, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report. The Court finds the Magistrate

Judge’s conclusions that Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed pursuant to

(e) is reasonable and absent of clear error. Therefore, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions and recommendations are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 6) as the opinion of the Court, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims in this case. The Clerk’s Office is

INSTRUCTED TO ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE THE CASE. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: Austin, Texas, December 15, 2025.

□□ Senior United States District Judge