Trejo v. US Senate

N.D. Texas

Trejo v. US Senate

DecidedApril 29, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-00067

StatusUnknown

This text of Trejo v. US Senate (Trejo v. US Senate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trejo v. US Senate, (N.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ABILENE DIVISION ARMANDO TREJO, JR., Plaintiff, v. No. 1:23-CV-067-H-BU US SENATE, et al., Defendants. ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve the defendants, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court orders. Dkt. No. 22. No objections were filed, and the plaintiff has taken no action in this case since February 20, 2024. See Dkt. No. 20. Where no specific objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (Sth Cir. 2020). The District Court has reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none,‘ the Court accepts and adopts the FCR. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve the defendants, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court orders.

‘ The FCR’s citation to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(m) as the rule governing the time limit for service, see Dkt. No. 22 at 1, 3, appears to be a typographical error. The FCR quotes the language of Rule 4(m) and cites that rule in its conclusion. See id. at 3, 4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

So ordered on April A , 2024. of. JAMESAVESLEY HENDRIX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

tt

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ABILENE DIVISION ARMANDO TREJO, JR., Plaintiff, v. No. 1:23-CV-067-H-BU US SENATE, et al., Defendants. ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve the defendants, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court orders. Dkt. No. 22. No objections were filed, and the plaintiff has taken no action in this case since February 20, 2024. See Dkt. No. 20. Where no specific objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (Sth Cir. 2020). The District Court has reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none,‘ the Court accepts and adopts the FCR. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve the defendants, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court orders.

‘ The FCR’s citation to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(m) as the rule governing the time limit for service, see Dkt. No. 22 at 1, 3, appears to be a typographical error. The FCR quotes the language of Rule 4(m) and cites that rule in its conclusion. See id. at 3, 4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

So ordered on April A , 2024. of. JAMESAVESLEY HENDRIX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

tt

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Trejo v. US Senate, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trejo-v-us-senate-txnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack