David Juarez v. Kimberly Martin & Assocs., et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION DAVID JUAREZ, #199450, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-437-JDK-KNM § KIMBERLY MARTIN & ASSOCS., § et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff David Juarez, an inmate of the Smith County Jail proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his civil rights in prison without paying the filing fee. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On January 23, 2026, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court’s orders to satisfy the filing fee requirement and to amend the complaint to cure identified deficiencies. Docket No. 13. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, who did not file objections within the prescribed period.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days 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 Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. 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 the record in this case, 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. 13) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of March, 2026.

JHREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE