govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-6_25-cv-00275-0

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
TYLER DIVISION 
MALACHI XAVIER LOWE, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, et al., 
Defendants. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Plaintiff Malachi Lowe, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate 
proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was 
referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 
On February 2, 2026 , Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation 
recommending that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or to ob ey an order of the Court. 
Docket No. 11. Plaintiff objected. Docket No. 13. 
Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court 
reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 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. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless 
Services, LLC, 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017). 
In his objections, Plaintiff says that he lacks the funds to pay the initial partial 
filing fee of $9.00 to proceed in forma pauperis as required by Court order. See Docket 
No. 13. He states that he submitted another copy of his inmate trust account to show that PageID #: 
<pageID>
2
he is “truly without funds.” Id. But the Court’s records show that no such copy has been 
received. Nor does Plaintiff establish any good cause for his failure to obey the Court’s 
order. Plaintiff mostly repeats arguments from his previous filings, insisting that he is 
“truly indigent.” Docket No. 13. The Fifth Circuit has stated that “parties filing 
objections [to a Magistrate Judge’s Report] must specifically identify those findings 
objected to. F rivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the 
district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987); see 
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). This means that a party must point out with particularity 
any alleged errors in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Objections which merely re-urge 
arguments from the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. See 
Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993) . Plaintiff fails to identify what 
specifically he objects to within the Magistrate Judge’s Report and thus his objections 
are without merit. 
Having conducted a de novo review of th e record in this case and the Magistrate 
Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is 
correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court 
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (Docket No. 13) and ADOPTS the Report of the 
Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) as the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s claims 
are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to 
prosecute or obey an order of the Court. PageID #: 
<pageID>
 
3 
 
So ordered and signed on this 
Jun 15, 2026 PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight