Case Information
*1 Case: 4:25-cv-00048-DMB-JMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 06/24/25 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION MATTHEW JONES PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:25-CV-48-DMB-JMV GREENVILLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT DEFENDANT
ORDER
On June 2, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Matthew Jones’ complaint be dismissed. Doc. #4. The R&R warned that “failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report … within (14) fourteen days … shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court.” Id . at PageID 19. No objection to the R&R was filed.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[P]lain error review applies where, as here, a party did not object to a magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendation to the district court despite being served with notice of the consequences of failing to object.” Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t , 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz , 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)).
Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [4] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. Jones’
Case: 4:25-cv-00048-DMB-JMV Doc #: 5 Filed: 06/24/25 2 of 2 PageID #: 21 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice .
SO ORDERED , this 24th day of June, 2025.
/s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2