Green v. Lumico Life Insurance et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 9 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION JAMES GREEN, § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. LUMICO LIFE INSURANCE and NIELS KEUKER, Defendants. 1:23-CV-1274-RP ORDER Before the Court is the amended report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell concerning Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2). (Am. R. & R., Dkt. 9). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Howell issued his report and recommendation on April 16, 2024. (Id.). As of the date of this order, no party has filed objections to the report and recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. When no objections are timely filed, a district court can review the magistrate’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.”). Because no party has filed timely objections, the Court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Having done so and finding no clear error, the Court accepts and adopts the report and recommendation as its own order. 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the amended report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell, (Dkt. 9), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cause of action, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED. Specifically, to the extent Plaintiff asserts claims or damages pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act, these claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), as the Federal Reserve Act does not confer on private citizens the right to sue. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court will enter final judgment by separate order. SIGNED on May 9, 2024. ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?