Tawe v. Corbett et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 13 Memorandum and Recommendations. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection; GRANTS 7 Corbett's Motion to Dismiss; GRANTS 8 Putnam, McKee, and Alsobrook's motion to dismiss; DE NIES Plaintiff's 11 motion to amend, DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's 20 motion for sanctions; DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's 21 motion for default judgment; and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's action. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(scavazos, 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
RICHARD N TAWE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
SUSANNA CORBETT, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

March 01, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-00028

ORDER
The Court is in receipt of Defendant Susanna Corbett’s (“Corbett”) February
28, 2017, motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 7; Defendants Kenneth Putnam, Jr.
(“Putnam”), James A. McKee (“McKee”), and Michael E. Alsobrook’s (“Alsobrook”)
March 9, 2017, motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 8; Plaintiff’s April 13, 2017, motion to
amend, Dkt. No. 11; the June 8, 2017, Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”)
of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred, Dkt. No. 13; Plaintiff’s
June 26, 2017, objection to the M&R, Dkt. No. 17; Plaintiff’s December 13, 2017,
motion for sanctions, Dkt. No. 20; and Plaintiff’s December 13, 2017, motion for
default judgment, Dkt. No. 21.
The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objections
to the M&R are frivolous, conclusory, general, or contain no arguments that the
M&R has not already considered. Dkt. No. 17; see also 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 proposed M&R
in its entirety. Dkt. No. 13. Thus, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection.
The Court hereby:


GRANTS Corbett’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 7;



GRANTS Putnam, McKee, and Alsobrook’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 8;

1/2



DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend, Dkt. No. 11;



DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, Dkt. No. 20;



DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Dkt. No. 21; and



DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s action.

The Court will order entry of final judgment separately.
SIGNED this 1st day of March, 2018.
___________________________________
Hilda Tagle
Senior United States District Judge

2/2