Field v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION THEOPHILUS FIELD, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-CV-939-FB § ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE § and JOHNNY LEE JIMERSON, III, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in the above-captioned cause on January 29, 2026 (ECF No. 6), concerning Plaintiff Theophilus Field’s failure to prosecute his case and failure to follow an order of the court. According to the CM/ECF system, the Report and Recommendation sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, was received by the Plaintiff on February 4, 2026 (ECF No. 9). To date, the docket reflects no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 In the Report, United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney recommends that this case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to follow a court order. Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party's last known address, “service is complete upon mailing .” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is made by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). When the mode of service is by electronic means, three days are no longer added to the time period to act after being served. See Heverling v. McNeil Consumer Pharmaceuticals, Co., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-1433, 2018 WL 1293304 at *2 n.3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2018) (“On April 28, 2016, the Supreme Court adopted changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In pertinent part, the Court amended Rule 6(d) to remove ‘electronic means’ as a mode of service triggering an make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and finds its reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). The Recommendation shall therefore be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiffs case shall be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to follow a court order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on January 29, 2026 (ECF No. 6), is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to follow a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Motions pending, if any, are DISMISSED AS MOOT, and this case is now CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 28th day of May, 2026. jeer C Se FRED BI UNITED STATES DISTRICY JUDGE -2-