Sadrick Bevard Johnson v. Reginald Lamar Johnson, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION SADRICK BEVARD JOHNSON, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 4:26-cv-100-JDK-JDL § REGINALD LAMAR JOHNSON, § et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On January 13, 2026, Plaintiff Sadrick Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On January 29, 2026, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 7. The Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff but returned undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not updated his address with the court. Docket No. 8.

As a result, no objections to the Report have been filed and the timeframe for doing so has passed.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 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 Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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 the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court agrees that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. And, 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, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 7) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of March, 2026. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE