Filed: Aug. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JEREMY D. KERNODLE , District Judge . This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. On May 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 23), recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice against Defendant Jeffrey Coe for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Court reviews the findings and conclus
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JEREMY D. KERNODLE , District Judge . This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. On May 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 23), recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice against Defendant Jeffrey Coe for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Court reviews the findings and conclusi..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEREMY D. KERNODLE, District Judge.
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 23), recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice against Defendant Jeffrey Coe for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiffs did not file objections in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law").
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. The Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 24) as the findings of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Docket No. 24) is ADOPTED, that Defendant Jeffrey Coe's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 5) is GRANTED, and that the claims against Defendant Jeffrey Coe be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant Jeffrey Coe is hereby DISMISSED as a party to this lawsuit. The dismissal of these claims and this party shall have no effect upon the lawsuit's remaining claims.
So ORDERED.
