Tamez v. Torok

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED November 10, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT athan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

EDDIE TAMEZ, §

§

Plaintiff, §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00220 §

STEPHEN TOROK, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and. Recommendation (M&R)..(D.E. 11). The M&R recommends that (1) the Court retain Plaintiff Tamez’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Torok in his individual capacity and (2) dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff Tamez’s claim against Defendant Torok in his official capacity. (D-E. 1).

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 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, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. 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 M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 11). Accordingly: (1) The Court RETAINS Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference against Defendant Torok in his individual capacity. (D.E. 1). (2) The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Torok in his official capacity.

SO ORDERED. |

DA S. MORALES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas

November whe 202]

2/2