Armour v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

E.D. Texas

Armour v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

District Court, E.D. Texas·Decided March 2, 2023·No. 6:22-cv-00033·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:22-cv-00033 Artis Armour, Plaintiff, v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles et al., Defendants.

ORDER Harold Wayne Mitchell filed a motion to intervene in the above- styled and numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights lawsuit. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a report (Doc. 30) recommending that intervenor’s motion to intervene (Doc. 27) be denied for failing to meet the necessary pre- requisites pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Neither plaintiff nor inter- venor objected to the report and recommendation. When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s re- port and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Doc. 30. For the rea- sons stated in the report, intervenor’s motion is denied. Doc. 27. So ordered by the court on March 2, 2023.

j! CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:22-cv-00033 Artis Armour, Plaintiff, v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles et al., Defendants.

ORDER Harold Wayne Mitchell filed a motion to intervene in the above- styled and numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights lawsuit. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a report (Doc. 30) recommending that intervenor’s motion to intervene (Doc. 27) be denied for failing to meet the necessary pre- requisites pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Neither plaintiff nor inter- venor objected to the report and recommendation. When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s re- port and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Doc. 30. For the rea- sons stated in the report, intervenor’s motion is denied. Doc. 27. So ordered by the court on March 2, 2023.

j! CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

Armour v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Armour v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (Armour v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related