govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-6_26-cv-00069-0

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
TYLER DIVISION 
 
ROSFEL GARZA, #01181215, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 

 
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Plaintiff Rosfel Garza, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice 
proceeding pro se, was one of several prisoners who jointly filed a lawsuit pursuant 
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of their civil rights in prison without paying 
the filing fee. Plaintiff’s case was severed into this action and referred to United 
States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendations for the disposition of the action. 
On March 30, 2026, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s 
lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff had failed to comply 
with the Court’s order to satisfy the filing fee requirement and to file an amended 
complaint asserting his own claims. Docket No. 5. A copy of this Report was mailed 
to Plaintiff, who received it on April 21, 2026, and did not file objections within the 
prescribed period. Docket No. 6. 
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 PageID #: 
<pageID>
2 
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. 
Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017). 
Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 
reviews Judge Love’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) (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. 5) as the findings of this Court. It is 
therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 
prosecute. 
 
 
So ordered and signed on this 
Jun 15, 2026 PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight