govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-5_26-cv-00010-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
TEXARKANA DIVISION 
PATRICK HURD, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
JEFF NEAL, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-10-RWS-JBB 
 
ORDER 
Plaintiff Patrick Hurd, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 
1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Docket No. 1. The case was 
referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 
On March 4, 2026, Plaintiff was ordered to pay, within thirty days of receipt of the order, 
an initial partial filing fee of $15.00 or show good cause why he could not do so, in accordance 
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Docket No. 9. Plaintiff was also ordered to amend his complaint within 
30 days. Docket No. 8. Plaintiff received copies of the orders on March 9, 2026, but he failed to 
comply with their requirements. See Docket No. 10. 
Therefore, on April 14, 2026, the m agistrate judge issued a r eport and r ecommendation, 
recommending the above lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey an order of 
the Court. Docket No. 11. A copy of this report and recommendation was sent to Plaintiff at his 
last known address, but no objections have been received. The Fifth Circuit has explained that 
where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a presumption exists that the letter 
reached its destination in the usu al time and was actually received by the person to whom it was 
addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 931 F.3d 412, 420–21 and n.9 (5th Cir. 
2019). PageID #: 
<pageID>
Page 2 of 2 
 
Because no objections have been filed, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review of the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from 
appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted 
by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex ., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). After 
review, the Court concludes that the report and reco mmendation is correct. See United States v. 
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to 
a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly 
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is 
ORDERED that the report and recommendation (Docket No. 11) is ADOPTED as the 
opinion of the District Court. It is further 
ORDERED that the above -styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 
failure to obey an order of the Court. 
 
 
 
 
 
.
 
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of June, 2026. PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight