Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-CV-00220
01-04-2023
EDDIE TAMEZ, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN TOROK, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID S. MORALES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton's Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 44). The M&R recommends that the Court GRANT Defendant Stephen Torok's motion for summary judgment and DISMISS Plaintiff Eddie Tamez's deliberate indifference claims with prejudice for failure to exhaust. Id.
The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge's M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015).
On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter entitled “objection.” (D.E. 45). In the letter, Plaintiff indicates that he wrote “3 grievances” but that each time he wrote a grievance, “LT. Randolph” would tell Plaintiff that he lost it and to write another one. Id. at 1. However, Plaintiff does not state what these grievances were, including whether they were objections to the M&R. Id. Additionally, Plaintiffs' letter does not address the M&R or Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Id. As such, even if the Court construed this letter as an objection to the M&R, the objection was not directed to any portion of the M&R and thus would not impact the Court's decision to adopt the M&R.
Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 44). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (D.E. 30). The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claims with prejudice against Defendant for failure to exhaust. (D.E. 1; D.E. 10). A final judgment will be entered separately.
SO ORDERED.