Goebel v. Perez

District Court, W.D. Texas

Goebel v. Perez

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION JAY GOEBEL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-22-CA-01354-FB ) ERIC PEREZ, San Antonio Airport Police; ) and JOSE LUIS LEDESMA, San Antonio ) Airport Police, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 23) concerning Defendants’ motions to dismiss (docket nos. 11 & 20). To date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

492 U.S. 918

(1989). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 23) is ACCEPTED pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1) such that Defendant 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 635

(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party’s last known address, “service is complete upon mailing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.”

Id.

at (E). San Antonio Airport Police Officer Jose Luis Ledesma’s Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 11) and Defendant San Antonio Airport Police Officer Eric Perez’s Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 20) are GRANTED and the above-styled and numbered cause is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions pending with the Court, if any, are Dismissed as Moot and this case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 15th day of December, 2023.

Seen

D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown