Summary
holding that a two year gap between protected activity and retaliatory event was too remote to justify claim of retaliation
Summary of this case from Edison v. Avalon Corr. Servs., Inc.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. C-11-169
03-30-2012
WILLI FREE I GARNER, Plaintiff, v. CANDACE MOORE, et ad, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO GRANT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On March 8, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Brian L. Owsley issued his "Memorandum and Recommendations to Grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" (D.E. 45). The parties were provided proper notice of, 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); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed.
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. 45), 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, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 39) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2012.
_______________
Nelva Gonzales Ramos
United States District Judge