Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-03-CA-0626-FB (NN)
December 15, 2003
ORDER ACCEPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 77) and plaintiff's written objections thereto (docket no. 80).
Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Memorandum and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). In such cases, the Court need only review the Memorandum and Recommendation and determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).
On the other hand, any Memorandum and Recommendation to which objection is made requires de novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
The Magistrate Judge recommends this case be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Court has thoroughly analyzed the plaintiff's submission in light of the entire record. As required by Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this cause and has conducted a de novo review with respect to those matters raised by the objections. As part of his objections, plaintiff states that he resides in Ohio, indicating a possible basis for diversity jurisdiction. The record, however, reflects that plaintiff's address is 1614 Ceralvo Street, San Antonio, Texas. Moreover, plaintiff filed suit in San Antonio and he regularly appears in person in the Office of the District Clerk here. After due consideration, the Court concludes that plaintiff's objections lack merit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 77) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) such that defendants' motions to dismiss (docket nos. 29, 32, 33, 66 73) are GRANTED such that the above-styled and numbered cause is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Motions pending with the Court (docket nos. 56, 62, 79) are dismissed as moot.
It is so ORDERED.