UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 12, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ERIC WAYNE LLOYD, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00305 § SERGEANT VILLARREAL, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

On February 24, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (M&R, D.E. 75), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (D.E. 60) be denied and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (D.E. 62) be granted. 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 Indus., Inc.,

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

(5th Cir. 1996)). 1 / 2 Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, 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 Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (D.E. 60) is DENIED and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (D.E. 62) is GRANTED. This action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. ORDERED on May 12, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2