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, )

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