Lucas Williams v. Sergio Jiminez, et al.

Williams v. Jiminez · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division · March 18, 2026 · No. 5:26-CV-4-RWS-JBB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas adopts a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court notes that the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application, failed to file an amended complaint establishing jurisdiction, did not update his address, and filed no objections.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division
Writing for the Court
Robert W. Schroeder III
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division
Decision date
March 18, 2026
Docket number
5:26-CV-4-RWS-JBB
Procedural posture
The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No objections were filed, and the district court adopted the recommendation.
Standard of review
Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, abuse of discretion, and whether it was contrary to law; unobjected-to findings and conclusions were not subject to de novo review, absent plain error for appellate review.
Precedential value
Unpublished district court order; precedential status not established in the source.
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

subject matter jurisdictionpleadingscivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurefederal jurisdictionmagistrate judge review

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be adopted.
  2. What standard of review applies when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.

Holdings

  1. When no objections are filed, the district court need not conduct de novo review of the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and reviews the recommendation under the applicable clearly erroneous, abuse-of-discretion, and contrary-to-law standard.
  2. The action was properly dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after Plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order to establish jurisdiction and failed to otherwise prosecute the case.

Key quotations

where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” (at 2)

Factual background

Plaintiff filed the action but did not pay the full filing fee or submit the required application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs. He also failed to file an amended complaint clearly establishing subject matter jurisdiction, despite being ordered to do so. Court mailings were returned as undeliverable, and Plaintiff did not provide an updated address or otherwise contact the court.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed the action on January 9, 2026. The court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees and to file an amended complaint establishing subject matter jurisdiction. The order and the later Report and Recommendation were returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff did not update his address or otherwise contact the court, and no objections were filed. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…