Sandoval v. Lumpkin

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 15, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION

JESSE MANUEL SANDOVAL, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-CV-00024 § BOBBY LUMPKIN, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

On September 12, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 8), recommending that certain claims be retained and others be dismissed. Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 8), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court RETAINS the First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against TDCJ Director Bobby Lumpkin in his official capacity for injunctive relief only. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims against Director Lumpkin in his official capacity for monetary damages. ORDERED on October 15, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2