Lester v. Flores
Lester v. Flores
Trial Court Opinion
Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rooney eee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ALBERT SHANE LESTER, § § Plaintiff, § V. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00263 STEVEN A. FLORES, : Defendant. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 63). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. /d. 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(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell vy. 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. 63). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (D.E. 60). SO ORDERED.
1/2
MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas FebruaryZ/%2025
2/2
Reference
- Status
- Unknown