Jackson v. Gutierrez et al

Filing 90

ORDER re: 77 Memorandum and Recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's M&R to Deny Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (D.E. 77).(Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION PHILLIP JACKSON, Plaintiff, VS. DAVID GUTIERREZ, et al, Defendants. § § § § § § § § ENTERED September 25, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-17 ORDER The Court has before it Plaintiff Phillip Jackson’s (“Jackson”) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (D.E. 73), the Memorandum and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (“M&R”) of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (D.E. 77), and Jackson’s Objections to the M&R (D.E. 84). This Court previously granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Jackson’s civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (D.E. 38),1 denied Jackson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 22), denied Jackson’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.E. 26), and denied Defendant’s request for a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Order (Apr. 4, 2017), D.E. 66. After independently reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s M&R to Deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (D.E. 77). IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 24th day of September, 2017. ___________________________________ Hilda Tagle Senior United States District Judge 1 The undersigned declined to adopt the portion of the December 9, 2016 M&R that recommended that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations, (D.E. 66, pp. 2-4), but adopted the recommendations in all other respects. See generally Order (Apr. 4, 2017), D.E. 66. 1/1

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?