Redding v. Swanton et al

Filing 56

ORDER ADOPTING 53 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING (ECF Nos. 13, 25, 37, 41, 9, 26, 36, 38, 40, 43, 35, 39,42 and 50) and DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (cc3)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
WILLIAM REDDING,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK SWANTON, ET AL,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

A-17-CV-00470-ADA

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Jeffrey C. Manske. ECF No. 53. The report recommends that Defendants Frost and Schwartz’s
Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 13, 25, 37, 41); Defendants Chavez, Rogers, Stroman, and
Swanton’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 9, 26, 36, 38, 40, 43); Defendant Reyna’s Motions to
Dismiss (ECF Nos. 35, 39, 42); and Chavez, Rogers, Stroman, and Swanton’s Motion to
Supplement their Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) be GRANTED. The report and
recommendation was filed on August 8th, 2024.
A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and
recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). As of today, no party has filed objections.
When no objections are timely filed, a district court reviews the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s Note (“When
no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court has reviewed the
report and recommendation and finds no clear error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske., ECF No. 53, is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Frost and Schwartz’s Motions to Dismiss
(ECF Nos. 13, 25, 37, 41); Defendants Chavez, Rogers, Stroman, and Swanton’s Motions to
Dismiss (ECF Nos. 9, 26, 36, 38, 40, 43); Defendant Reyna’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 35,
39, 42); and Chavez, Rogers, Stroman, and Swanton’s Motion to Supplement their Motions to
Dismiss (ECF No. 50) are GRANTED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.
SIGNED this 28th day of August, 2024.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE