Villa v. Vaughn

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

MARTIN VILLA, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00216 § NICHOLAS MICHAEL VAUGHN, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION On November 13, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 11), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for nonsuit (D.E. 9) and motion to remand (D.E. 10) be granted. 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. 11), and all other relevant / 2 documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Villa’s construed motion for nonsuit (D.E. 9) is GRANTED and his claims against EAN Holdings are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Villa’s motion to remand (D.E. 10) is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to the 105th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDERED on December 18, 2024. fel GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2