Lander v. Krock et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
PETER E. LANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARC DAVID KROCK, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 4:25-CV-684-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Peter E. Lander filed this lawsuit seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and state law against various defendants. Docket No. 1. The case was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendations for disposition. Plaintiff filed notices of voluntary
dismissal against Dr. Nagendra Srinivas Kodali, Plano Police Department, Officer
Bob Doe, Officer James Doe, Officer Peter Doe, Officer Michael Doe, and John Doe.
Docket Nos. 7 & 8. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
notices of voluntary dismissal be granted and that the claims against those
defendants be dismissed without prejudice. Docket No. 42. No written objections
have been filed.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo 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.
Case 4:25-cv-00684-JDK-KNM Document 89 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 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 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. 42) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that the notices of voluntary dismissal (Docket No. 7 & 8) are
GRANTED and the claims asserted against Dr. Nagendra Srinivas Kodali, Plano
Police Department, Officer Bob Doe, Officer James Doe, Officer Peter Doe, Officer
Michael Doe, and John Doe are DISMISSED without prejudice.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2nd	March, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00684-JDK-KNM Document 89 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>