UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 19, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

BRIAN WILLIAM DOUD, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-374 § NATASHA MCMILLION, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 60). The M&R recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, be denied. (D.E. 59). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R.1 See

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

(5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate

1 Plaintiff’s mail was returned as undeliverable. See (D.E. 63; D.E. 64). Since then, the Court has waited an appropriate amount of time for an updated address. As a party, Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times and has failed to do so. Judge, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D-E. 60). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, construed as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, be DENIED. (D.E. 59). SO ORDERED. () J /

DAVID S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas March 19, 2021

2/2