Bartholomew v. Lafourche Parish ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LUCIEN LUKE BARTHOLOMEW CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 21-1695 LAFOURCHE PARISH, ET AL. SECTION “R” (2) ORDER Plaintiff’s complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and to conduct an evidentiary hearing if necessary. After plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s orders and did not attend scheduled conferences, Magistrate Judge Currault recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff did not object to the R&R. Therefore, this Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order 1 R. Doc. 27. to accept the receommendation.”). The Court finds no clear error. Therefore, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Currault’s R&R as its opinion. Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiffs complaint DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all defendants. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _23rd_ day of January, 2023. Varven SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE