The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
GUSI J. MENGER, a/k/a HEATHER §
V. MENGER, a/k/a CARRIE EVELYN §
MENGER, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No. 6:22-cv-172-JDK-KNM
§
RANDY WAGES, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Gusi J. Menger filed this pro se lawsuit May 5, 2022. The case was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition.
On October 4, 2022, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the
Court dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may
be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Docket No. 19. Plaintiff did not file written objections, but has
submitted several other filings. Most recently, the Court entered an order on
February 24, 2023, giving Plaintiff a final opportunity to file any written objections
to the Report within ten days. The order was sent to Plaintiff by regular and certified
mail. U.S. Postal Service tracking reveals that Plaintiff did not accept the Court’s
certified mail.1 Plaintiff has still not filed objections.
1 USPS certified mail tracking #70221670000142785064.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 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.
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane),
superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 the 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. 19) as the findings of this Court. It is
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi).
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of May, 2023.
ey J Korb
JHREMYD. KERN DLE
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE