Visintine v. NavyArmy Community Credit Union

S.D. Texas

Visintine v. NavyArmy Community Credit Union

District Court, S.D. Texas·Decided November 18, 2024·No. 2:24-cv-00124·Unknown

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT severe □□ □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ROBERT S. VISINTINE, § Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-124 NAVYARMY COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, § Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E.11). The M&R recommends that the Court (1) dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs RICO claim and (2) dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs construed state law claims for breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, and fraud. Id. at 19. 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. Judge Neurock granted Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to the M&R on or before October 11, 2024. (D.E. 15). 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 (5th 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). 1/2

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. 11). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs RICO claim and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs construed state law claims for breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, and fraud. (D.E. 1). Because this Order dismisses all of Plaintiffs claims, the Court will enter final judgment separately. SO ORDERED. Ob Af UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christ}, Texas November a , 2024

2/2

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

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT severe □□ □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ROBERT S. VISINTINE, § Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-124 NAVYARMY COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, § Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E.11). The M&R recommends that the Court (1) dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs RICO claim and (2) dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs construed state law claims for breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, and fraud. Id. at 19. 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. Judge Neurock granted Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to the M&R on or before October 11, 2024. (D.E. 15). 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 (5th 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). 1/2

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. 11). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs RICO claim and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs construed state law claims for breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, and fraud. (D.E. 1). Because this Order dismisses all of Plaintiffs claims, the Court will enter final judgment separately. SO ORDERED. Ob Af UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christ}, Texas November a , 2024

2/2

Visintine v. NavyArmy Community Credit Union, (S.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Visintine v. NavyArmy Community Credit Union (Visintine v. NavyArmy Community Credit Union) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related