Israel Avila v. Saminiego Jr. Placido, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 08, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ISRAEL AVILA, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00023 § SAMINIEGO JR. PLACIDO, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE On March 3, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case” (D.E. 15). 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 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 15), 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, Plaintiff's motion to reopen case (D.E. 13) is DENIED. ORDERED on April 8, 2026. Lele GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2