UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 15, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

THOMAS O. MARTINEZ, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00202 § EDUARDO BALDERAS, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN CASE AND DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS On January 13, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued a “Memorandum and Recommendation to Retain Case and Dismiss Certain Claims” (M&R, D.E. 25). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s M&R is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s M&R. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s M&R (D.E. 25), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the 1 / 2 Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court RETAINS the following claims: (1) due process claims (loss of tablet and commissary privileges) against Officers Ramirez, Brown, Lerma, and Nevado in their individual capacities; and (2) deliberate indifference claims (sleep deprivation) against Officers Ramirez, Brown, and Lerma in their individual capacities. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants that are not otherwise retained or disposed of above are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). ORDERED on February 15, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2