Mejia v. Ramirez et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re: 32 Memorandum and Recommendation, denying 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment, granting in part and denying in part 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. The Court RETAINS Plaintiff's claims regarding showers, recreation days, and johnny sacks.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DONALD MEJIA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MARIA D RAMIREZ, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00238

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On April 10, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued her
“Memorandum and Recommendation on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment” (D.E.
32).

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. 32), 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 Plaintiff’s Motion for
1/2

Summary Judgment (D.E. 31) is DENIED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (D.E. 24) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court
DISMISSES

Plaintiff’s

claims

concerning

extreme

temperatures,

circulation/ventilation, and commissary visitation for failure to exhaust.

air

The Court

RETAINS Plaintiff’s claims regarding showers, recreation days, and johnny sacks.
ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2