Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-CV-00154
12-19-2022
OVERVILLE DENTON THOMPSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. BOBBY LUMPKIN, et al., Defendants.
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. 30). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (D.E. 28).
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); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp., 512 F.Supp.3d 741, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.).
Having 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. 30). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgment. (D.E. 28).
SO ORDERED.