Richardson v. Livingston et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 45 Memorandum and Recommendations. The motion to dismiss (DE 33) is granted in part and Plaintiff's claims against Officer Alberto Valdez are DISMISSED. The motion (DE 33) is DENIED IN PART as to the remaining claims. (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
BRANDON RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
VS.
BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al,
Defendants.

January 21, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00464
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 14, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued
her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 45), recommending that Defendants’
“Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)” be granted in part as to Officer
Alberto Valdez and otherwise denied. 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. 45), and all other relevant
1/2

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 motion to dismiss
(D.E. 33) is GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Alberto Valdez
are DISMISSED. The motion (D.E. 33) is DENIED IN PART as to the remaining
claims.
ORDERED this 21st day of January, 2016.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2