Vurimindi v. Mayorkas

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MAR 2 9 2023 AUSTIN DIVISION CLERK. US DISTRICT □□□□ WESTERN DISTRIG □□ Ag VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI, § BY — S □ PLAINTIFF, § □ § V. § CAUSENO. 1:23-CV-00220-LY-SH § ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, § SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF § HOMELAND SECURITY; MERRICK § GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF = § THE UNITED STATES; UR MENDOZA □ § JADDOU, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND § IMMIGRATION SERVICES DIRECTOR; = § CONNIE NOLAN, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE § DIRECTOR, SERVICE CENTER § OPERATION DIRECTORATE, USCIS; § DEBRA A. ROGERS, POTOMAC § SERVICE CENTER DIRECTOR, USCIS; MARIO ORTIZ, SAN ANTONIO § DISTRICT DIRECTOR, USCIS; AND § WILEY BLAKEWAY, SAN ANTONIO § FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, USCIS, § DEFENDANTS. § ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the court is the above-entitled and numbered cause of action, which was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings and recommendations pursuant to Section 636(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, as amended, and the Court Docket Management Standing Order for United States District Judge Lee Yeakel (Doc. #4). Plaintiff Vamsidhar Vrimindi, proceeding pro se, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation on March 22, 2023 (Doc. #5), withholding service upon Defendant and recommending that this court dismiss Plaintiffs lawsuit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation, and thereby secure a de novo review by the district court. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a Report and Recommendation bars that party, except upon erounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc). Plaintiff Vamsidhar Vurimindi’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation were filed on March 28, 2023 (Doc. #7). In light of Plaintiff's objections, the court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and applicable law in this case and finds that the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation should be approved and accepted by the court for substantially the reasons stated therein. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Vamsidhar Vurimindi’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed March 28, 2023 (Doc. #7), are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order and Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed March 22, 2023 (Doc. #5) is APPROVED AND ACCEPTED as stated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims and causes of action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, filed February 27, 2023 (Doc. #1), is DISMISSED AS MOOT. A Final Judgment shall be filed subsequently.

SIGNED this A day of March, 2023.

iy te ; UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE