Williams v. The Urology Group, P.C.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION FREDERICK E. WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF V. NO. 3:25-CV-280-DMB-RP WALTER RAYFORD, M.D.; and THE UROLOGY GROUP, P.C. DEFENDANTS ORDER On October 8, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. #9. The R&R warned: [F]ailure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations in [the R&R] within 14 days after being served with a copy bars [a] party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, … and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accept[ed] by the district court. Id. at 2–3 (emphasis in original). No objections to the R&R were 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 S.A. 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 [R&R] 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 the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [9] is ADOPTED as order of the Court.1 This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 29th day of October, 2025. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Consequently, Williams’ October 2 motion to amend his complaint will be terminated. The R&R noted that “the proposed amendment does not cure the defects [in the complaint].” Doc. #9 at 1 n.1.