Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-cv-04015
02-14-2023
ADAM CONTRERAS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID WILSON, et al, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Hon. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge
Plaintiff Adam Contreras, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against multiple defendants. Dkt 1. Intelligible allegations of fact and legal causes of action cannot be discerned.
Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan dated January 17, 2023, recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt 7.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there's no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983).
After entry of the Memorandum and Recommendation, Contreras filed multiple documents. See Dkts 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14. These filings are as unclear as his complaint. Regardless, they do not appear to contain a specific objection to the Memorandum and Recommendation.
No clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 7.
All claims asserted by Plaintiff Adam Contreras are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
SO ORDERED.