No. 3:04-CV-514-H.
April 1, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PAUL STICKNEY, Magistrate Judge
This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
On March 11, 2004, Plaintiff filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 11, 2004, a second case was also opened based upon a copy of this complaint. See Wood v. Polk, No. 3:04-CV-515-L. That complaint is currently pending and has progressed farther than this case. The undersigned United States Magistrate Judge therefore recommends that this case be administratively closed. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States Magistrate Judge recommends that this case be administratively closed.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings and recommendations on Petitioner. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings and recommendations must file and serve written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings and recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. The failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the district court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to proposed findings and recommendations within ten (10) days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).