Miranda v. Lumpkin

District Court, S.D. Texas

Miranda v. Lumpkin

Trial Court Opinion

Southem District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 04, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION DOMINGO MIRANDA, § Plaintiff. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00271 BOBBY LUMPKIN, ai., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (*“M&R"”). (D.E. 39). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Declaration for Entry of Default, (D.E. 37), which the M&R construes “as a motion for entry of default judgment.” (D.E. 39, p. 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 1s clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp.,

512 F. Supp. 3d 741

, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). Having 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. 1/2

39). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Declaration for Entry of Default. (D.E. 37). SO ORDERED. □ DA S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas January 4, 2023

2/2

Reference

Status
Unknown