Villasana v. Rivera

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 29, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

AUDENCIO G. VILLASANA, III, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00146 § SHERIFF OSCAR RIVERA, et al., § § Defendants § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On December 23, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 44).

Plaintiff was 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. 48), 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 Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. Nos. 36, 39) because Plaintiff's appeal would not be taken in good faith as he fails to identify any nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

ORDERED on January 29, 2025. eke GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2