Richardson v. Livingston et al

Filing 75

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION re: 72 Memorandum and Recommendation, denying 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 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.

November 28, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

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

ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 28, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued
her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 72), recommending that Defendant
Refugia Campos’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 58) be 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. 72), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
1/2

findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Defendant Campos’s
motion for summary judgment (D.E. 58) is DENIED.
ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2016.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2