Miranda v. Lumpkin

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 28, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION DOMINGO MIRANDA, § Plaintiff, ; CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00271 BOBBY LUMPKIN, ef ail., : Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 34). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Defendants’. motion to dismiss. (D.E. 28). 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. Clv. 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 its clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. □□□□□ (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp., 512 F. Supp. 3d 741, 743-44 (S8.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and conclusions, 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. 34). Accordingly, the Court DENTES Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (D.E. 28). 1/2

SO ORDERED. | ( ( DA S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas October 28, 2022

2/2