Thompson v. Lumpkin

Opinion

Southern District of Texas - ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT December 19, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION OVERVILLE DENTON THOMPSON, § IR., § § Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00154 § V. § § BOBBY LUMPKIN, ef ai., § § Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 30). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (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. 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. 19§9) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp., 512 F. Supp. 3d 741, 743-44 (SD. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). 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. (DE. L/Z

30). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgment. (D.E. 28). SO ORDERED. (

DAVID S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas December , 2022

Lhe