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)

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