Strong v. Livingston et al
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 145 Memorandum and Recommendations. Granting Motion for Summary Judgment 141 and Dismissing this action as MOOT. (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(fcarbia, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
TABARI S STRONG, et al,
BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al,
March 23, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-00106
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 7, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued her
“Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 145), recommending that this action be
dismissed as moot. The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object
to, the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 145), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Defendant Collier’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 141) is GRANTED and this action is
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2017.
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?