Rodriguez v. Garland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 19, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ANGELICA RODRIGUEZ, et al. § § Plaintiffs § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00078 § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION On September 4, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 32), recommending that the parties’ Agreed Motion for Settlement (D.E. 23) be granted, including the provision that the minors’ recoveries be entrusted to their parent rather than held in the registry of the Court. The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed.

When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation 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 memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).

Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 32), 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, the motion for settlement (D.E. 23) is GRANTED.

ORDERED on September 19, 2024. [eke GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2