Thomas v. Linthicum

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 26, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JEWELL THOMAS, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00162 § LANETTE LINTHICUM, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 25, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 71), recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), D.E. 68. 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. Rather, Plaintiff has filed only an additional application to appeal IFP, which does not address any part of the analysis of the memorandum and recommendation. 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. 71), 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, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP (D.E. 68) is DENIED. ORDERED on April 26, 2024. GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2