REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III, District Judge.

On January 15, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded this matter to the District Court to determine whether the untimeliness of the filing of defendant's notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect or good cause. [Doc. #49]. On April 10, 2013, the District Court referred the matter to this Court for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. [Doc. #52].

On April 22, 2013, this Court set a briefing schedule, ordering defendant to brief whether the untimeliness of the filing of his notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect or good cause by May 7, 2013 and ordering the United States to respond by May 22, 2013. May 7, 2013 has come and gone, and plaintiff has not responded to this Court's Order. Neither has the Court received its Order dated April 22, 2013 returned as undeliverable. Accordingly, and with no explanation from defendant, this Court can not say that excusable neglect or good cause existed for the untimely filing of his notice of appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the District Court conclude that excusable neglect and/or good cause did not exist for the untimeliness of the filing of defendant's notice of appeal.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

Objections must be: (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1(a), 6(b) and 72(b). A party's failure to object bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge; and (2) appellate review of the un-objected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).