Juarez v. Kimberly Martin & Associates et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DAVID JUAREZ, #199450,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY MARTIN & ASSOCS.,
et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-437-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff David Juarez, an inmate of the Smith County Jail proceeding pro se,
filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his civil rights
in prison without paying the filing fee. 	The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On January 23, 2026, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that
Plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff had failed to
comply with the Court’s orders to satisfy the filing fee requirement and to amend the
complaint to cure identified deficiencies. 	Docket No. 13. 	A copy of this Report was
mailed to Plaintiff, who did not file objections within the prescribed period.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days 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
Case 6:25-cv-00437-JDK-KNM Document 14 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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 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 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. 13) as the findings of this Court. 	It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
prosecute.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4th	March, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00437-JDK-KNM Document 14 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>