Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-85
08-26-2014
HECTOR J. AVILA, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 9, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his Memorandum and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Petitioner's claim. D.E. 6. The parties were provided proper notice and opportunity to object to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Article IV, General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation were due within 14 days of being served with a copy. D.E. 6, p. 4. On April 22, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file his objections. D.E. 7. That motion was granted, and Petitioner was ordered to file his objections by May 23, 2014. D.E. 8. On May 23, 2014, Petitioner filed a second motion for extension of time to file his objections. D.E. 14. That motion was also granted, and Petitioner was ordered to file his objections by July 25, 2014. D.E. 16. On July 16, 2014, Petitioner filed a nunc pro tunc motion which was construed as a motion for extension of time. D.E. 18 and 19. That motion was granted and Petitioner was ordered to file his objections by August 15, 2014. D.E. 19. As of August 22, 2014, no objections have been filed.
This motion was incorrectly docketed as objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 6), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action (D.E. 1) is DISMISSED.
ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2014.
/s/_________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE