Peter E. Lander v. Marc David Krock, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION PETER E. LANDER, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 4:25-CV-684-JDK-KNM § MARC DAVID KROCK, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Peter E. Lander filed this lawsuit seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against various defendants. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. Plaintiff filed notices of voluntary dismissal against Dr. Nagendra Srinivas Kodali, Plano Police Department, Officer Bob Doe, Officer James Doe, Officer Peter Doe, Officer Michael Doe, and John Doe.

Docket Nos. 7 & 8. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the notices of voluntary dismissal be granted and that the claims against those defendants be dismissed without prejudice. Docket No. 42. No written objections have been filed.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (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 the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations, 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. 42) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that the notices of voluntary dismissal (Docket No. 7 & 8) are GRANTED and the claims asserted against Dr. Nagendra Srinivas Kodali, Plano Police Department, Officer Bob Doe, Officer James Doe, Officer Peter Doe, Officer Michael Doe, and John Doe are DISMISSED without prejudice.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of March, 2026.

JHKREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE