Luper v. University Of Texas Medical Branch et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 22 Memorandum and Recommendations. In conclusion, the Court: DISMISSES this action, and DENIES Plaintiff's January 12, 2018, motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 21. The Court will direct entry of final judgment separately. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(mperez, 1)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER ALAN LUPER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL
BRANCH, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

June 14, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-00322

ORDER
Before the Court is the October 4, 2016, Memorandum and Recommendation
(“M&R”) of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred, Dkt. No. 13;
Plaintiff’s October 24, 2016, Objection to the M&R, Dkt. No. 15; the February 12,
2018, M&R of the Magistrate Judge, Dkt. No. 22; and Plaintiff’s March 5, 2018,
Objection to the M&R, Dkt. No. 24.
I.

October 4, 2016, M&R

The October 4, 2016, M&R recommends that the Court dismiss this action.
Dkt. No. 13 at 7. On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed an objection the M&R. Dkt. No.
15. The Court reviews objected-to portions of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objection is
frivolous, conclusory, general, or contains no arguments that the M&R has not
already considered. See Dkt. Nos. 13, 15; Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n,
834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987) (determining that a district court need not consider
frivolous, conclusive, or general objections).
After independently reviewing the record and considering the applicable law,
the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety, Dkt. No. 13, and OVERRULES
Plaintiff’s objection, Dkt. No. 15. The Court DISMISSES this action.

1/2

II.

February 12, 2018, M&R

The February 12, 2018, M&R, Dkt. No. 22, recommends that the Court deny
Plaintiff’s January 12, 2018, summary judgment motion, Dkt. No. 21. On March 5,
2018, Plaintiff filed an objection to the M&R. Dkt. No. 24. The Court reviews
objected-to

portions

of

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

proposed

findings

and

recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objection is frivolous,
conclusory, general, or contains no arguments that the M&R has not already
considered. See Dkt. Nos. 22, 24; Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d
419 (5th Cir. 1987) (determining that a district court need not consider frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections).
After independently reviewing the record and considering the applicable law,
the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety, Dkt. No. 22, and OVERRULES
Plaintiff’s objection, Dkt. No. 24. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment. Dkt. No. 21.
III.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Court:


DISMISSES this action, and



DENIES Plaintiff’s January 12, 2018, motion for summary judgment, Dkt.
No. 21.

The Court will direct entry of final judgment separately.
SIGNED this 13th day of June, 2018.
___________________________________
Hilda Tagle
Senior United States District Judge

2/2