Jefferson v. Endsley et al

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 65 Report and Recommendations, and ORDERED that 46 cross motion for summary judgment is DENIED and 53 Motion to strike is Denied as Moot. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 9/3/2014. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
WILLIE JEFFERSON

§

v.

§

D. ENDSLEY, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13cv18

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ON PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Willie Jefferson, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit complaining of alleged
violations of his rights. This Court ordered that the case 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.
The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which has since been withdrawn.
Jefferson filed a response to this motion which included a cross-motion for summary judgment.
After review of Jefferson’s pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
Jefferson’s cross-motion for summary judgment be denied and that the Defendants’ motion to strike
Jefferson’s cross-motion be denied as moot.

Neither party filed objections to the Report;

accordingly, the parties are barred from de novo review by the district judge of those findings,
conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review
of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the
district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings 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. 65) is ADOPTED as the

opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (docket no. 46) is hereby
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to strike the Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary
judgment (docket no. 53) is DENIED as moot.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2014.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2