Joseph Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury

W.D. Texas

Joseph Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury

DecidedMarch 20, 2023

Docket6:22-cv-00920

StatusUnknown

This text of Joseph Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury (Joseph Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, (W.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

JOSEPH VAN LOON, et al, § Plaintiffs, § § 6:22-CV-00920-ADA-JCM v. § § DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, et al, § Defendants. § §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. ECF No. 28. The Report recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas (ECF No. 15). The Report and Recommendation was filed on February 16, 2023. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiffs filed objections on February 27, 2023. ECF No. 29. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ objections on March 13, 2023. ECF No. 34. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Defendants’ Motion, the responses, the report and recommendation, the objections to the report and recommendation, the response to the objections, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Manske, ECF No. 28, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ objections are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be transferred from the Waco Division to the Austin Division.

SIGNED this 20th day of March, 2023. ™~s, ot } ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

JOSEPH VAN LOON, et al, § Plaintiffs, § § 6:22-CV-00920-ADA-JCM v. § § DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, et al, § Defendants. § §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. ECF No. 28. The Report recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas (ECF No. 15). The Report and Recommendation was filed on February 16, 2023. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiffs filed objections on February 27, 2023. ECF No. 29. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ objections on March 13, 2023. ECF No. 34. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Defendants’ Motion, the responses, the report and recommendation, the objections to the report and recommendation, the response to the objections, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Manske, ECF No. 28, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ objections are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be transferred from the Waco Division to the Austin Division.

SIGNED this 20th day of March, 2023. ™~s, ot } ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joseph Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-van-loon-v-department-of-the-treasury-txwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack