Meitzler v. Coultier

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION RICHARD P. MEITZLER, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-CV-00032 § HILDA COULTIER, et al, § § Defendants. § United States District Cot Southern District of Texas ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION ENTERED December 10, 2024 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s MemortlathamOchsnér, Clerk Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 16), The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and deny as moot all other motions.

Id. at 1.

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 reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 16). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 1/2 DENIES as moot all other motions filed in this case. (D.E. 3; D.E. 4; D.E. 5; DE. 6).

SO ORDERED.

DA . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas December , 6/2024