Escolona v. TDCJ

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 07, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JULIO ESCOLONA, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-290 § RYAN COLLIER, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 8). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety (D.E. 8). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: (1) That only Plaintiff Julio Escolona proceed in this action.

(2) That Plaintiffs Isidro Rodriguez, Rogelio Rodriguez, Giovanni Dastych, Jorge Sanchez, and Jorge Rodriguez are DISMISSED without prejudice from this action to maintain each plaintiff's right to file a new complaint on the appropriate form for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint along with either full payment of the filing fee or a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Plaintiffs Isidro Rodriguez, Rogelio Rodriguez, Giovanni Dastych, Jorge Sanchez, and Jorge Rodriguez from the docket sheet.

SO ORDERED.

DASHD S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas January 7, 2021

2/2