Knox v. Ledbetter

Full title: WINNETT KNOX, Plaintiff, v. CRYSTAL LEDBETTER, MICHAEL JOHN, JEFFREY…

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of Texas

Date published: Nov 22, 2023

CIVIL 4:22-CV-03026 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2023)

Opinion

CIVIL 4:22-CV-03026

11-22-2023

WINNETT KNOX, Plaintiff, v. CRYSTAL LEDBETTER, MICHAEL JOHN, JEFFREY MILLER, and USDOJ -EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW, Defendants.

DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is the October 11, 2023 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 26). Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. No. 14), be denied as moot; and that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 21), be granted. (Dkt. No. 26). Judge Bray denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, (Dkt. No. 23). (Dkt. No. 26).

The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “response” to the M&R. (Dkt. No. 27). Plaintiff concurs with Judge Bray's recommendation that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but objects to the Executive Office for Immigration Review's representation by an attorney who is employed by the U.S. Attorney's Office. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff did not object to the denial of leave to amend.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made and reviewed proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court.

It is therefore ordered that: Judge Bray's M&R (Dkt. No. 26) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and

(1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. No. 14), is DENIED AS MOOT; and

(2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 21), is GRANTED.

It is SO ORDERED.