Salinas v. Ramirez

S.D. Texas

Salinas v. Ramirez

DecidedMarch 3, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-00168

StatusUnknown

This text of Salinas v. Ramirez (Salinas v. Ramirez) 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.

Bluebook

Salinas v. Ramirez, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 03, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ROBERTO SALINAS, § § Plaintiff, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00168 § ROMEO R. RAMIREZ, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 13). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss certain claims and retain Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Sheriff Ramirez. Jd. at 1-2. 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). 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. 13). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: e Plaintiff's claims against Duval County as well as Sheriff Ramirez and Judge Canales in their official capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice; e Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Sheriff Ramirez with regard to his unlawful detention of Plaintiff after he was allegedly granted bail on June 17, 2024 is RETAINED; and 1/2

e Plaintiff's remaining § 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim for relief, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B), against Sheriff Ramirez and Judge Canales in their individual capacities. SO ORDERED. . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus ut Texas March 2°, 2025

2/2

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

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 03, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ROBERTO SALINAS, § § Plaintiff, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00168 § ROMEO R. RAMIREZ, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 13). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss certain claims and retain Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Sheriff Ramirez. Jd. at 1-2. 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). 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. 13). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: e Plaintiff's claims against Duval County as well as Sheriff Ramirez and Judge Canales in their official capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice; e Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Sheriff Ramirez with regard to his unlawful detention of Plaintiff after he was allegedly granted bail on June 17, 2024 is RETAINED; and 1/2

e Plaintiff's remaining § 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim for relief, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B), against Sheriff Ramirez and Judge Canales in their individual capacities. SO ORDERED. . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus ut Texas March 2°, 2025

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Salinas v. Ramirez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salinas-v-ramirez-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack