Lopez v. Garza

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: April 21, 2023
• Docket: 7:22-cv-00348
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 21, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION EMMANUEL LOPEZ, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:22-CV-0348 § EDDIE GARZA, DIRECTOR § OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT § OF CORRECTIONS, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are Plaintiff Emmanuel Lopez’s motion for entry of default! and motion for default judgment’ (collectively, the “Motions for Default”), which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On March 31, 2023, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motions for Default be denied. The time for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error.4 Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Motions for Default’ are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 21st day of April 2023. NK ove 7 Micaela Alvi United States District Judge

'Dkt. No. 19. 2 Dkt. No. 21. 3 Dkt. No. 31. 4 As noted by the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he advisory committee’s note to Rule 72(b) states that, ‘[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Douglas vy. United States Service Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 145, 1420 (Sth Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)) superseded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n. 5 (Sth Cir. April 2, 2012). > Dkt. Nos. 19 & 21.