Sorrow v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 17, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

LOYD LANDON SORROW, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-169 § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT On May 7, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment” (D.E. 37). 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 Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services 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. 37), 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 motion to alter or amend judgment (D.E. 36) is DENIED. ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2021. Jbl GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2