Perez v. Hanson

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION To Dismiss For Failure To Prosecute re: 8 Memorandum and Recommendations, (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(JaredMarks, 2)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MARIO A PEREZ, Petitioner, VS. RALPH HANSON, Respondent. § § § § § § § § § February 05, 2024 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00243 ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE On January 3, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute” (D.E. 8). Petitioner was 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. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely 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. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. 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 memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 8), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the 1/2 findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ORDERED on February 5, 2024. _______________________________ NELVA GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2

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?