Martin v. Busby
This text of Martin v. Busby (Martin v. Busby) 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.
Opinion
□ Souther District of Texas _ ENTERED . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 16, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION . □□ DANIEL NEAL MARTIN, § Plaintiff, ve CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00181 LARRY BUSBY, et al., . ; tl Defendants. . es
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION □ . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 10). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (D.E. 1; D.E. 10, p.. 1). The M&R also recommends that the dismissal be counted as a “strike” for frivolous filing pursuant to 28 USC. §.1915(g). (D.E. 10, p. 1). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b);, General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp., 512 F. Supp. 3d 741, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). . . Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 10). Accordingly, the Court orders that Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED with prejudice. (D.E. 1). The Court further orders
1/2
that this dismissal be counted as a “strike” for frivolous filing as described in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that the Clerk of Court be INSTRUCTED to send notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at Three_Strikes@txs.uscourtsgov. A final judgment will be entered separately. SO ORDERED.
DA S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas September 16, 2022
2/2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Martin v. Busby, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-busby-txsd-2022.