Boyd v. TDCJ

Full title: ANDRE D. BOYD, ET AL. (Raefel Garza, #01181215) v. TDCJ

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division

Date published: Mar 15, 2023

Civil Action 6:23cv012 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 6:23cv012

03-15-2023

ANDRE D. BOYD, ET AL. (Raefel Garza, #01181215) v. TDCJ

JOHN D. LOVE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JOHN D. LOVE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Raefel (Rosfel) Garza, an inmate confined in the Coffield Unit of the Texas prison system, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with twenty-four other plaintiffs. The cause of action was referred for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On January 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss himself as a plaintiff from the above named and numbered cause of action. (Dkt. #3). A plaintiff is entitled to voluntarily dismiss a party before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1). No defendant has filed an answer or appeared in any manner. Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims in this action should be granted.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Plaintiff Garza's motion to dismiss (Dkt. #3) be granted and that Plaintiff Garza be dismissed from this action without prejudice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge's Report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report.

A party's failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

So ORDERED.