Full Opinion

Case: 26-10062 Document: 39-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-10062 November 11, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk Eric VanderWerff, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus NewRez, L.L.C., doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing; U.S. Bank Trust National Association, not in its Individual Capacity but solely as Owner Trustee for VRMTG Asset Trust, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CV-2316 ______________________________ Before Davis, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Plaintiff-Appellant Eric VanderWerff, proceeding pro se, appeals the without-prejudice dismissal of his suit after he failed to comply with multiple court orders. Because we find no clear error, we AFFIRM. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-10062 Document: 39-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2026 No. 26-10062 VanderWerff first filed this case in state court, seeking a restraining order to prevent foreclosure on his property. The case was removed to federal court on September 12, 2024. The same day, VanderWerff was instructed in writing to register as a user of the court’s CM/ECF system, as required by local court rules. VanderWerff did not comply. Three days later on September 15, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered VanderWerff to register by October 8, 2024. Her order also warned VanderWerff that failure to comply could result in dismissal under civil Rule 41(b). 1 Again, he did not comply. Over a year later, VanderWerff was advised by the courtroom deputy that a video hearing was scheduled for November 6, 2025. During that hearing, the magistrate judge ordered VanderWerff to register as a user of the court’s CM/ECF system by the close of business; otherwise, the case would be dismissed. The magistrate judge twice extended the deadline sua sponte, first to November 17, 2025, and then to November 21, 2025. But VanderWerff never registered with the court’s CM/ECF. On December 3, 2025, the magistrate judge recommended the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with her orders. Her recommendation warned VanderWerff that he had 14 days to object to it and that failure to object would bar him from appealing the recommendation’s factual findings and legal conclusions, except on grounds of plain error. 2 VanderWerff did not object to the recommendation. On December 18, 2025, the district judge reviewed the recommendation for clear error and, finding none, accepted it in full. A _____________________ 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 2 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 2 Case: 26-10062 Document: 39-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/11/2026 No. 26-10062 separate judgment dismissing the case without prejudice entered the same day. 3 VanderWerff appealed. Because VanderWerff did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, we review for clear error. 4 We find no clear or obvious error. 5 VanderWerff contends, without record support, that the district clerk’s office misspelled his name when the case was removed, which prevented him from registering with CM/ECF. But he never alerted the district court to the problems he supposedly encountered, and a court “cannot have erred as to matters which were not presented to it.” 6 Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. _____________________ 3 The district judge’s order adopting the R&R stated the case would be dismissed with prejudice. But the final judgment under review dismissed the case without prejudice, as the magistrate judge recommended. 4 See Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1417. 5 See DeCorte v. Jordan, 497 F.3d 433, 441 (5th Cir. 2007) (“This standard of review requires a clear or obvious error that affects substantial rights.”). 6 Gabel v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 124, 125 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 3