From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nelson v. Davis

United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
Jan 10, 2022
Civil Action 2:19-CV-00371 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:19-CV-00371

01-10-2022

ARDELL NELSON, Plaintiff, v. LORI DAVIS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REINSTATE

NELVA GONZALES RAMOS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On December 3, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued a “Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate” (M&R, D.E. 13). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed.

When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's M&R 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 M&R. 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 M&R (D.E. 13), 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 Motion to Reinstate (D.E. 11) is construed as a Rule 59(e) motion and is DENIED.

ORDERED.


Summaries of

Nelson v. Davis

United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
Jan 10, 2022
Civil Action 2:19-CV-00371 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022)
Case details for

Nelson v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:ARDELL NELSON, Plaintiff, v. LORI DAVIS, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Texas

Date published: Jan 10, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 2:19-CV-00371 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022)