Gregory v. LNU

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
PAUL R. GREGORY, #02022541,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN FNU LNU, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:26-cv-035-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Paul R. Gregory, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights lawsuit alleging
violations of his constitutional rights in prison. Docket No. 1. The case was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On February 10, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B). Docket No. 9. A copy of this Report was sent
to Plaintiff. No written objections were filed 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
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
Case 6:26-cv-00035-JDK-JDL Document 14 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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. Rule 72(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires written objections to a magistrate's
findings and recommendations to be filed within 14 days. Objections to the Report
were due on February 25, 2026. Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file
objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation on March 5, 2026. Docket
No. 13. His motion provides no explanation for his failure to timely seek an extension
of the objection deadline before it expired. Rather, Plaintiff indicates that the sole
purpose of an extension would be to locate Defendant Davis “so the court can
communicate with him.” Docket No. 13 at 1. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to
demonstrate any excusable neglect that would justify an extension.
The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or
abuse of discretion and reviews his 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. 9) as the findings of this Court. This
Case 6:26-cv-00035-JDK-JDL Document 14 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Plaintiff’s motion for extension (Docket No. 13) is DENIED as futile, and
any other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
Case 6:26-cv-00035-JDK-JDL Document 14 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>