Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT oe SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MARK ANTHONY DISHMAN, JR., § Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00258 C.0. COX, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s amended Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 30). The M&R withdraws the December 15, 2022 M&R, (D.E. 17), and recommends dismissing all Plaintiffs claims as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (D.E. 30, p. 1, 15). The M&R further recommends the dismissal of this case count as a strike for the purposes of

(g). Jd at 1, 15. This amended M&R is largely a result of the magistrate judge’s review of evidence that Defendant Cox submitted to support his motion for summary judgment. See

(examining D.E. 25-1 and D.E. 25- 2). Defendant Cox moved for summary judgment, in part, on qualified immunity grounds. See (D.E. 25, p. 4-5, 6-8, 12-13). Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant Cox’s motion for summary judgment. See LR 7.4 (“Failure to respond to a motion will be taken as a representation of no opposition.”). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. 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

1/2

States v. Wilson,

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

, 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 VACATES its previous order adopting the magistrate judge’s initial M&R, (D.E. 28), and ADOPTS the amended M&R in its entirety, (D.E. 30). Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED. (D.E. 1). Further, the Court ORDERS that dismissal of this case count as a strike for purposes of

(g). The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to send notice of this dismissal to the manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at [email protected]. Defendant Cox’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice as moot. (D-.E. 25). A final judgment wiii be entered separately. SO ORDERED. . DAVID □□ MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas April 28, 2023

2/2