Tyra Campos, et al. v. William Shepherd, et al.

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Neca □□ □ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION TYRA CAMPOS, et al., § Plaintiffs, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00040 WILLIAM SHEPHERD, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 50). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the judgment. /d. at 4. 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. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). 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. (D.E. 50). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, (D.E. 48). SO ORDERED.

1/2

S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas December 2°” 2025

2/2