Church v. Rangel

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: May 13, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 13, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

WILLIE CHURCH, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00074 § ROMEO RANGEL, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On April 9, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” (D.E. 48). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 48), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (D.E. 38) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ORDERED on May 13, 2024. GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2