Watson v. Austin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION RORY A. WATSON, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-24-CV-027-FB § LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, SECRETARY, § UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF § DEFENSE, DEFENSE COMMISSARY § AGENCY, § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in the above-captioned cause on May 6, 2024 (docket #9), concerning Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (docket ##8). The electronic case management system reflects that Plaintiff received the Report and Recommendation on or before May 13, 2024 (docket #13), and to date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.

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 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). The Recommendation shall therefore be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (docket #8) shall be DENIED.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on May 6, 2024 (docket #9), is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (docket #8) is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 7th day of May, 2024. ar . —fpet FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-