Martinez v. Guerra

District Court, S.D. Texas

Martinez v. Guerra

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 09, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION PETE EDWIN MARTINEZ § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 7:23-CV-00298 § EDDIE GUERRA, CORPORAL MORA § ADAN GUERRERO, BRYAN POWERS § and OFFICER PONCE, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending before the Court is the January 11, 2024 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Nadia S. Medrano. (Dkt. No. 4). Magistrate Judge Medrano made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 2), be denied as moot and that this civil action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 4 at 4). The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the R&R. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No party filed an objection. As a result, review is straightforward: plain error. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

434 F.3d 303, 308

(5th Cir. 2005). No plain error appears. Accordingly, the Court accepts the R&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that: (1) Magistrate Judge Medrano’s R&R (Dkt. No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and □□□ Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 2), is DENIED as moot; and (3) This civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. It is SO ORDERED. Signed on February 9, 2024.

DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown