Dannelly v. USA
Filing
4
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of United States Magistrate Judge.ORDERED that the above-styled petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DISMISSED as moot. Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all other motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 6/23/2015. (pad, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
MICHAEL EUGENE DANNELLY
§
v.
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13cv438
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Relator, Michael Dannelly, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of
mandamus. This court ordered that the matter be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules
for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
On September 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
petition be dismissed as moot. A copy of this Report was sent to the Relator at his last known
address, return receipt requested. However, no objections have been received.
The court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. It
is accordingly
1
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 3) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DISMISSED as
moot. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all other motions which may be pending in this civil action are
hereby DENIED.
.
SIGNED this the 23rd day of June, 2015.
_______________________________
RICHARD A. SCHELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?