Rodriguez v. Brown DO NOT DOCKET IN 2:19-cv-175. CASE IS CONSOLIDATED UNDER 2:19-cv-174.

District Court, S.D. Texas

Rodriguez v. Brown DO NOT DOCKET IN 2:19-cv-175. CASE IS CONSOLIDATED UNDER 2:19-cv-174.

Trial Court Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 10, □□□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, § . Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-175 CAMERON BROWN, et ail., Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION □ Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), entered on August 20, 2019. (D.E. 10). The M&R recommends - that the Court RETAIN the claims against Officer Cameron Brown, Officer Johnny Joe Cantu, and Sergeant Eloisa Aguirre in their individual capacities, and DISMISS the claims against the same defendants in their official capacities. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No timely objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. □□ H-14-2700,

2015 WL 3823141

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). □ Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the 1/2

M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 10). SIGNED and ORDERED this _/ 7 day of September 2019.

DAVID MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Reference

Status
Unknown