Gonzales v. Chief Sinton Police Department/Officers

S.D. Texas

Gonzales v. Chief Sinton Police Department/Officers

DecidedMay 30, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00001

StatusUnknown

This text of Gonzales v. Chief Sinton Police Department/Officers (Gonzales v. Chief Sinton Police Department/Officers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gonzales v. Chief Sinton Police Department/Officers, (S.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 30, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

RICHARD O. GONZALES, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00001 § CHIEF SINTON POLICE § DEPARTMENT/OFFICERS, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On May 8, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 11), performing an initial screening of Plaintiff’s complaint and recommending that certain claims be retained and other claims be dismissed. See Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff was 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 (Sth Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 11), 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, the Court RETAINS Plaintiffs claims of excessive force against Officers Rodriguez and Hernandez in their individual capacities. The Court DISMISSES all of Plaintiff's other claims. ORDERED on May 30, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 30, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

RICHARD O. GONZALES, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00001 § CHIEF SINTON POLICE § DEPARTMENT/OFFICERS, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On May 8, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 11), performing an initial screening of Plaintiff’s complaint and recommending that certain claims be retained and other claims be dismissed. See Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff was 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 (Sth Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 11), 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, the Court RETAINS Plaintiffs claims of excessive force against Officers Rodriguez and Hernandez in their individual capacities. The Court DISMISSES all of Plaintiff's other claims. ORDERED on May 30, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gonzales v. Chief Sinton Police Department/Officers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzales-v-chief-sinton-police-departmentofficers-txsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack