District Court, S.D. Texas, 2024

Momoh v. J. Carrasco

Momoh v. J. Carrasco
District Court, S.D. Texas · Decided November 18, 2024
Momoh v. J. Carrasco

Trial Court Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS November 18, 2024 CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk MARTIN LAVELL MOMOH § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-148 § J. CARRASCO, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 23). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss the case. Jd. at 11.

The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R.! See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted).

Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and A copy of the M&R mailed to Plaintiff was returned as unclaimed. (D.E. 25). Since then, the Court has waited an appropriate amount of time for an updated address. As a party, Plaintiff required to keep the Court apprised of his current address. LOCAL RULE 83.4. He has failed to do so. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has been aware of this pending motion since, at the latest, June 5, 2024. See (D.E. 20, p. 5).

1/9 finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 23). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 18), and DISMISSES with prejudice this cause of action, (D.E. 1). The Court will enter final judgment separately.

SO ORDERED.

DAV . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas November 179024

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.