Smith v. TDCJ Parole Board et al
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 81 Memorandum and Recommendations, DENYING 80 MOTION to Reopen case (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lrivera, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JERRY BUTLER SMITH JR, et al,
TDCJ PAROLE BOARD, et al,
November 27, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-382
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
On October 11, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued
her “Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case”
(D.E. 81). 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. 81), 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
reopen this case (D.E. 80), construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment is
ORDERED this 27th day of November, 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?