Green v. Lumico Life Insurance et al

Filing 11

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

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