Curry v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID

E.D. Texas

Curry v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID

DecidedAugust 10, 2023

Docket6:22-cv-00022

StatusUnknown

This text of Curry v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID (Curry v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curry v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID, (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:22-cv-00022 Chico Nakia Curry, Plaintiff, V. Director Bobby Lumpkin et al., Defendants.

ORDER Before the court is plaintiff's motion to amend or correct complaint. The court construes that motion as a motion to voluntarily dismiss defendant Nicholas W. Hannah as a wrongly named defendant. Doc. 62. Defendants affirmatively did not oppose the voluntary dismissal of Nicholas W. Hannah. Doc. 66. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 3. On November 17, 2022, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that plaintiff’s motion be granted and defendant Nicholas W. Hannah be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Doc. 76. No objections were filed. When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and rec- ommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Hav- ing reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommen- dation. The motion (Doc. 62) is granted. Defendant Nicholas W. Hannah is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is di- rected to terminate Nicholas W. Hannah as a defendant in this ac- tion.

So ordered by the court on August 10, 2023.

jf 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-00022 Chico Nakia Curry, Plaintiff, V. Director Bobby Lumpkin et al., Defendants.

ORDER Before the court is plaintiff's motion to amend or correct complaint. The court construes that motion as a motion to voluntarily dismiss defendant Nicholas W. Hannah as a wrongly named defendant. Doc. 62. Defendants affirmatively did not oppose the voluntary dismissal of Nicholas W. Hannah. Doc. 66. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 3. On November 17, 2022, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that plaintiff’s motion be granted and defendant Nicholas W. Hannah be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Doc. 76. No objections were filed. When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and rec- ommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Hav- ing reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommen- dation. The motion (Doc. 62) is granted. Defendant Nicholas W. Hannah is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is di- rected to terminate Nicholas W. Hannah as a defendant in this ac- tion.

So ordered by the court on August 10, 2023.

jf CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Curry v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-lumpkin-director-tdcj-cid-txed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack