Hancock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
SHUVONN LEMARIE HANCOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 4:25-cv-890-JDK
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 15, 2025, Defendant removed this personal injury suit to federal
court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 	The case was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendations for disposition of this action.
Plaintiff’s counsel is not admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas.
Despite multiple warnings from the Clerk and the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s
counsel did not obtain admission to practice in the Eastern District of Texas or move
to appear pro hac vice. See Docket Nos. 7 and 8.
Accordingly, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the complaint
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 10. Shortly after
Judge Mitchell issued her Report, Defendant filed an Agreed Motion to Dismiss with
Prejudice due to the parties’ settlement of the case. 	Docket No. 11. 	Neither party
Case 4:25-cv-00890-JDK-KNM Document 13 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
objected 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	Report, 	and 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	contradicted
Defendant’s representation that the Motion to Dismiss is agreed.
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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, no objections were filed. 	The Court therefore reviews Judge Mitchell’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. 10) as the findings of this Court.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), it is ORDERED that this case is
DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is generally
without prejudice. However, in light of the parties’ Agreed Motion to Dismiss with
Case 4:25-cv-00890-JDK-KNM Document 13 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Prejudice (Docket No. 11) suggesting that the parties have settled this case, it is
ORDERED that the dismissal here is WITH PREJUDICE.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9th	January, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00890-JDK-KNM Document 13 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>