Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00070
11-18-2022
JULIAN GALVAN SILVAS, JR., Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR VILLEREAL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO REOPEN
JULIE K. HAMPTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Julian Galvan Silvas, Jr., appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a Memorandum and Recommendation issued on July 8, 2022 (M&R), the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to comply with Court orders. (D.E. 42). The undersigned noted in the M&R that Plaintiff had willfully ignored “the Court's repeated instructions to raise claims in one Comprehensive Complaint only arising from his stay at the Nueces County Jail.” (Id. at 8).
On August 26, 2022, District Judge David S. Morales adopted the M&R and directed the Clerk of the Court to close this case. (D.E. 49). On October 7, 2022, the Court received Plaintiff's motions to reopen the case. (D.E. 53, 54). The undersigned will construe these motions as seeking reconsideration of the Court's August 26, 2022 Order.
As the Court has not issued a final judgment in this case, the undersigned declines to construe Plaintiff's motions seeking to alter or amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Plaintiff raises nothing in the pending motions to suggest that the dismissal of this case without prejudice was improper. Indeed, rather than provide any specific allegations regarding his stay at the Nueces County Jail, Plaintiff continues to reference in his motions events occurring in connection with his confinement at various TDCJ units. (D.E. 53, p. 2; D.E. 54). Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's motions to reopen case, construed as motions for reconsideration (D.E. 53, 54), be DENIED.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).