Regalado v. Calvert et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendation and denying 15 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/23/16. (tkd, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION JOHN REGALADO § v. § JUDGE GENE CALVERT, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13cv934 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT The Plaintiff John Regalado, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations 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. After the lawsuit was dismissed, Regalado filed a motion asking that the case be reheard. The Magistrate Judge construed Regalado’s request as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and issued a Report recommending that the motion be denied. A copy of this Report was sent to Regalado at his last known address, return receipt requested, but no objections have been received; accordingly, 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 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 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. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 1 (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. 17) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (docket no. 15) is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23 day of August, 2016. ___________________________________ Ron Clark, 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?