Jack Sullivan v. Carmen Pacheco, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION JACK SULLIVAN, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 4:26-cv-120-JDK-JDL § CARMEN PACHECO, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff Jack Sullivan, 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 February 4, 2026, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Docket No. 4. Judge Love also found that the filing of the complaint was frivolous and warned that continued filing of frivolous cases in this court may result in sanctions. Id. The Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff but returned undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not updated his address with the court. Docket No. 5. 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 Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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 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. 4. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is WARNED that the continued filing of duplicative actions in this district may result in sanctions.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of March, 2026.

JHREMYJD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE