IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

BRYAN ROLAND HOITT, #108066, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-396-JDK-JDL

§

GREGG COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Bryan Roland Hoitt, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was an inmate of the Gregg 

County Jail. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love 

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of 

the case. 

On October 17, 2023, 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 amend his complaint. Docket No. 11. A 

copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, but it was returned as undeliverable

—“not at this facility.” Docket No. 6. Publicly available electronic records of the 

Gregg County Jail confirm that Plaintiff was released on September 1, 2023. See

Gregg County Jail Records Search Detail for Hoitt, Bryan, Booking #: 

23-00131261, available at http://beta.co.gregg.tx.us/OdysseyPA/JailingSearch.aspx?ID=400

(last visited Nov. 28, 2023). Plaintiff has not objected, filed a notice of change of 

address, or taken any other action to prosecute this case since that date. 

1

Case 6:23-cv-00396-JDK-JDL Document 13 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 38
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and 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. Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (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. 11) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

2

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 30th November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00396-JDK-JDL Document 13 Filed 11/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 39