Weatherly v. Collier

S.D. Texas

Weatherly v. Collier

DecidedFebruary 10, 2021

Docket6:20-cv-00040

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Weatherly v. Collier, (S.D. Tex. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 11, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION ROHN M. WEATHERLY, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00040 § BRIAN COLLIER, TIMOTHY C. JONES, § J. C. GONZALES, VALERIE MACIEL, § and COREY FURR, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) signed by Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton on September 1, 2020. (Dkt. No. 15). In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Hampton resolved Plaintiff Rohn M. Weatherly’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”), (Dkt. No. 14). (Dkt. No. 15). The Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s Motion be denied without prejudice as premature because “several defendants have yet to be served, and none of the defendants have filed an answer or other responsive pleading.” (Id.). Magistrate Judge Hampton also noted that “no discovery has taken place, and no scheduling order regarding discovery has been issued in this case.” (Id.). The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No party has objected. As a result, review is straightforward. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition; see also Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F.3d 303, 308 (Sth Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law. No clear error appears. Accordingly, the M&R is ACCEPTED as this Court’s Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. It is SO ORDERED. SIGNED this February 10, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 11, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION ROHN M. WEATHERLY, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00040 § BRIAN COLLIER, TIMOTHY C. JONES, § J. C. GONZALES, VALERIE MACIEL, § and COREY FURR, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) signed by Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton on September 1, 2020. (Dkt. No. 15). In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Hampton resolved Plaintiff Rohn M. Weatherly’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”), (Dkt. No. 14). (Dkt. No. 15). The Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s Motion be denied without prejudice as premature because “several defendants have yet to be served, and none of the defendants have filed an answer or other responsive pleading.” (Id.). Magistrate Judge Hampton also noted that “no discovery has taken place, and no scheduling order regarding discovery has been issued in this case.” (Id.). The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No party has objected. As a result, review is straightforward. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition; see also Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F.3d 303, 308 (Sth Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law. No clear error appears. Accordingly, the M&R is ACCEPTED as this Court’s Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. It is SO ORDERED. SIGNED this February 10, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Weatherly v. Collier, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weatherly-v-collier-txsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack