Woods v. US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 25 Memorandum and Recommendations. Plaintiffs claims against BOP are DISMISSED. BOP's MOTION to Dismiss 24 is DENIED as moot. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(bthomas, 4)
Case 4:21-cv-00791 Document 29 Filed on 09/16/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
September 16, 2022
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-cv-00791
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE §
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS, et al.,
KERMIT C. WOODS,
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On July 15, 2022, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. 18. Judge Edison filed a
Memorandum and Recommendation on August 22, 2022, recommending that a
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24) filed by Defendant U.S. Department of Justice Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”) be GRANTED. Dkt. 25. No objections have been filed to the
Memorandum and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court reviews the
Memorandum and Recommendation for plain error on the face of the record. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
Based on the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds
that there is no plain error apparent from the face of the record. Accordingly, it is
hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
Case 4:21-cv-00791 Document 29 Filed on 09/16/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
Judge Edison’s Memorandum and Recommendation (Dkt. 25) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the
Plaintiff’s claims against BOP are DISMISSED; and
BOP’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24) is DENIED as moot.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED and ENTERED this 16th day of September 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?