Robles Hernandez v. Hidalgo County Adult Detention Center, Administration and Medical Administration et al

Filing 6

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONOF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 5 Report and Recommendations (Signed by Judge Drew B Tipton) Parties notified. (kll7)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
JUAN PABLO ROBLES
HERNANDEZ
a/k/a JUAN QUINOGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
HIDALGO COUNTY ADULT
DETENTION CENTER,
ADMINISTRATION AND MEDICAL
ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

September 25, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

Civil Action No. 7:24-CV-00234

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the September 4, 2024, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Nadia S. Medrano. (Dkt. No.
5). Judge Medrano made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 2), be DENIED and his civil rights action,
(Dkt. No. 1), be DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No party filed an objection. As a result,
review is straightforward: plain error. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th
Cir. 2005). No plain error appears.
Accordingly, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the Court’s opinion. It
is therefore ordered that:

(1)

Judge Medrano’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 5), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its
entirety as the holding of the Court;

(2)

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 2), is DENIED; and

(3)

Plaintiff’s civil rights action, (Dkt. No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on September 24, 2024.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2