Opinion
Civil Action 6:18-cv-00029
09-28-2021
MARK CLIFF SCHWARZER, Plaintiff, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN; TRAVIS WHITE; and PATRICK O'DANIEL, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the February 2, 2021 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby. (Dkt. No. 27). In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Libby recommends that the Court deny Defendant Bobby Lumpkin's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because pro se Plaintiff Mark Cliff Schwarzer's allegations are sufficient to show standing. (Dkt. No. 20).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No party has objected. As a result, review is straightforward: plain error. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005).
After Magistrate Judge Libby signed this M&R, Schwarzer subsequently filed “objections.” (Dkt. No. 31). Those objections, however, appeal Magistrate Judge Libby's non-dispositive order. See (Dkt. No. 28). No party has objected to the instant M&R.
By contrast, when a “district court undertakes an independent review of the record, ” the “review is de novo, despite any lack of objection.” Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services, L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
No plain error appears. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the M&R as the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court DENIES Defendant Bobby Lumpkin's Motion to Dismiss.
It is SO ORDERED.