Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hitchins v. Gale, 2:18-CV-95. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Texas Number: infdco20190304a88 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER HILDA TAGLE , Senior District Judge . The Court has received Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 12; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") to dismiss case, Dkt. No. 24; and Plaintiff's Objections to the M&R, Dkt. Nos. 28, 30. 1 After independently reviewing the filings, the record, and applicable law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R, Dkt. No. 24. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 12, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proce
More

ORDER

The Court has received Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 12; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") to dismiss case, Dkt. No. 24; and Plaintiff's Objections to the M&R, Dkt. Nos. 28, 30.1

After independently reviewing the filings, the record, and applicable law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R, Dkt. No. 24. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 12, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and DENIES Defendants' request for monetary sanctions, Dkt. No. 18.

This case is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the case.

FootNotes


1. The Court finds no difference between Plaintiff's Objections docketed as #28 and Plaintiff's Objections docketed as #30. The Court will therefore treat them as the same objections.
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