Opinion
6:19-cv-95-JDK-JDL
05-03-2023
LAROY JAMES TINDLE, Plaintiff, v. LATINA BLAIR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEREMY D. KERNODLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Laroy Tindle, a former Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice records show that Plaintiff was paroled out of TDCJ on January 13, 2023. To date, he has not advised the Court of his mailing address or present whereabouts, nor has he contacted the Court following his release. On March 15, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice for want of prosecution and Plaintiff's failure to comply with a Court order. Docket No. 60. A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff. However, no objections have been received.
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. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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 the 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. 60) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution and Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court. Further, the statute of limitations is SUSPENDED for a period of sixty days following the date of entry of final judgment to allow Plaintiff to refile.