UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 11, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION

RUEL REYNALDO MENDOZA, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Case No. 6:20-CV-00042 § FNU ATWELL, FNU AGUILAR and § JC GONZALEZ, § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) signed by Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton on September 21, 2020. (Dkt. No. 27). In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Hampton resolved Plaintiff Ruel Reynaldo Mendoza’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 24). The Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and recommended that “(1) Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities be [dismissed] as barred by the Eleventh Amendment; and (2) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants be [dismissed] with prejudice for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).” (Dkt. No. 27 at 1). Magistrate Judge Hampton also recommended that “the dismissal of this case counts as a ‘strike’ for purposes of

(g).” (Id.). The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the proposed findings and recommendations. See

(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No party has objected. As a result, review is straightforward. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition; see also Guillory v PPG Industries Inc,

(5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law. No clear error appears. Accordingly, the M&R is ACCEPTED as this Court’s Memorandum and Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim and/or as frivolous pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Furthermore, the dismissal of this case counts as a “strike” for purposes of

(g). It is SO ORDERED. SIGNED this February 10, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE