Martinez v. Stephens
Filing
24
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 23 Memorandum and Recommendations, Granting 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief in Support (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(srussell, 2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
EUGENIO ESPINOZA MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00092
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 31, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued
her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 23). 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. 23), 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, the Respondent’s Motion
1/2
for Summary Judgment (D.E. 14) is GRANTED and this action is DENIED. In the
event that Petitioner requests a Certificate of Appealability, that request is DENIED.
ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2014.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2/2
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?