Feist v. United States of America by and through Orthopedic, Ft. Hood Hospital

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FebrFuaIrLy 2E2D, 2024 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT SAN ANTONIO DIVISION WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS NM HERBERT FEIST, § BY: _____________________ D_ E_ P__ U_ T_ Y__ ___ § Plaintiff, § § v. § § CIVIL NO. SA-23-CV-01017-OLG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY § AND THROUGH ORTHOPEDIC, FT. § HOOD HOSPITAL, ANETHESIALO- § GIST, FT. HOOD HOSPITAL, and § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § § Defendants. § ORDER The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed December 8, 2023, concerning the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant United States of America. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 9.) Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendations. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). The R&R was mailed by certified mail on December 8, 2023 (see Dkt. No. 10), and no objections have been filed.1 Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989); cf. 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 or recommendations to which an objection is made.”) After such review, the Court finds that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous

1A party desiring to object to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations must file and serve written objections within fourteen days after being served with the recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). Service is made to the last-known address of the party, and service by mail is complete upon mailing. FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 9) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2024.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge