Brady v. Gonzales

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CHRISTOPHER T. BRADY, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-cv-00056-FB § DA JOE D. GONZALES, DA INTAKE, § BAR #24097633, SHERIFF JAVIER § SALAZAR, CHIEF WILLIAM § MCMANUS, HIMOS MIGJOROI, DA, § #24096537; § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, filed in the above-captioned cause on August 15, 2025. (Docket no. 8). The electronic docket sheet reflects the Report and Recommendation was sent by certified mail to Plaintiff on August 15, 2025, and the certified mail acknowledgment receipt shows Plaintiff received the Report and Recommendation on August 20, 2025. (Docket nos. 9 & 10). To date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party’s last known address, “service is complete upon mailing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 8) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and also for the additional reasons discussed in the Report and Recommendation. ITIS FINALLY ORDERED that motions pending with the Court, ifany, are Dismissed as Moot and this case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 12th day of September, 2025.

Feet CF

D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE