Dugas v. The United States Of America

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED February 21, 2020 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT David J. Bradley, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION JARVIS DUGAS, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-302 § THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et § al., § § Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), entered on January 30, 2020. (D.E. 15). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiffs motions to reconsider the dismissal of this case. (D.E. 9, 10, 11, 12). Plaintiff timely filed a motion to reconsider the M&R, which the Court interprets as objections to the M&R, on February 13, 2020. (D.E. 17). Plaintiffs objections challenge the outcome of the orders and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge and this Court in this case. Plaintiff does so by raising the same arguments he has made throughout this case, focusing primarily on the argument that Judge Ellington lacks immunity. (D.E. 17, p. 4). Plaintiff also attempts to relitigate claims raised in previous cases numbered 2:17-CV-48 and 2:19-CV-16. See (D.E. 17). After careful review, the Court finds that neither the motions to reconsider nor the objections clearly establish a manifest error of law or fact or present newly discovered evidence. See Schiller v. Physicians Res. Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (Sth Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has presented nothing to call into question this Court’s order of dismissal. Accordingly, the 1/2

Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections. Thus, after reviewing the facts, conclusions of law, and recommendation set forth in the M&R, as well as Plaintiffs objections and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo disposition of the portions of the M&R to which the objections were directed, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections. The Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Per the Court’s previous order (D.E. 8), this case remains dismissed with prejudice. SIGNED and ORDERED this Z/ $ day of Februayy 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2