Northup v. Bell et al
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION, ORDER DENYING 56 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Kirk John Northup, DENYING 50 MOTION for Reconsideration re 47 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, 48 Judgment, filed by Kirk John Northup, DENYING 51 MOTION for Recusal filed by Kirk John Northup. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 5/21/2013. (gsg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
KIRK JOHN NORTHUP
§
v.
§
OLIVER BELL, ET AL.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11cv222
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Kirk Northup, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional 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 lawsuit was dismissed on July 9, 2012, after an evidentiary hearing. On January 11,
2013, Northup filed motions for relief from judgment and to recuse the District Judge and Magistrate
Judge. A Report was entered on March 5, 2013, recommending that these motions be denied.
Northup did not file objections to this Report; instead, he filed a “motion for voluntary dismissal,”
stating that he had been moved to another prison unit and his claims were now moot.
Because Northup did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, he is 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).
1
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause as well as the Report of the Magistrate
Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is
correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109
S.Ct. 3243 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of
review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 53) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (docket no. 50) be and hereby
is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the Magistrate Judge and the District Judge
(docket no. 51) is hereby DENIED. Finally, it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (docket no. 56) is DENIED
as moot and unnecessary, in that the case had already been dismissed at the time that the motion was
filed.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of May, 2013.
__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
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?