Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-CV-00281
05-31-2023
ADAM ALEXANDER PERRY, Plaintiff, v. AUSTIN J HART, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On April 26, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued a “Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment” (M&R, D.E. 55). The parties were 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 Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. 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. 55), 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 Alter or Amend the Judgment (D.E. 52) is DENIED.
ORDERED.