LeClair et al v. Department of Family Protective Services et al

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDA AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 30 MOTION to Dismiss 29 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. DEFENDANT CARMEN AVALOS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT, 38 Memorandum and Recommendation, 37 Memorandum and Recommendation, 34 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6) (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
NICK LECLAIR, et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, et al,
Defendants.

January 08, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-057
§
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDA AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On December 11, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington issued
two Memoranda and Recommendations (D.E. 37, 38), recommending that Plaintiff Emily
Whipple’s motion to dismiss be construed as a motion to withdraw and be denied and
that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Carmen Avalos and the City of Corpus Christi
be dismissed. 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. While the notices were returned as
undeliverable, it is Plaintiffs’ obligation to keep the Court informed of their current
addresses. No timely objections to the Memoranda and Recommendations have been
filed.
When no 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.

1/2

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 Memoranda and Recommendations (D.E. 37, 38), 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, the Court
construes Plaintiff Emily Whipple’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (D.E. 28) as a
motion to withdraw and DENIES the motion (D.E. 28). The Court GRANTS Defendant
Carmen Avalos’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (D.E. 30) and DISMISSES
Plaintiffs’ claims against Carmen Avalos.

The Court GRANTS Defendant City of

Corpus Christi’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)
and 12(b)(6) (D.E. 34) and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Corpus
Christi.
ORDERED this 8th day of January, 2018.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2