Cox v. Stephens et al
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT re: 79 Memorandum and Recommendations, denied 78 MOTION to Alter Judgment (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(amireles, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
J L COX,
WILLIAM STEPHENS, et al,
May 26, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00151
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT
On April 26, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his
“Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment”
(D.E. 79). 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. 79), 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, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend or Alter Judgment (D.E. 78), construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
judgment, is DENIED.
ORDERED this 26th day of May, 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?