Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vera v. Davis, 2:17-CV-00246. (2018)

Court: District Court, S.D. Texas Number: infdco20180614c34 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER HILDA TAGLE , Senior District Judge . Before the Court is the April 24, 2018, Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred, Dkt. No. 14, and Petitioner's May 16, 2018, objection to the M&R, Dkt. No. 17. The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Petitioner's objection is frivolous, conclusory, general, or contains no arguments that the M&R has not
More

ORDER

Before the Court is the April 24, 2018, Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred, Dkt. No. 14, and Petitioner's May 16, 2018, objection to the M&R, Dkt. No. 17.

The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner's objection is frivolous, conclusory, general, or contains no arguments that the M&R has not already considered. See Dkt. Nos. 14, 17; Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987) (determining that a district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections). After independently reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety, Dkt. No. 14, and OVERRULES Petitioner's objection, Dkt. No. 17.

The Court hereby:

GRANTS Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 10; DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action; and DENIES Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability.

The Court will direct entry of final judgment separately.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer