Castorena v. Davis, 1:18-CV-00010-C. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
Number: infdco20190115h91
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SAM R. CUMMINGS , Senior District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. 1 The District Court made an independent examination of the record in this case and reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommenda
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SAM R. CUMMINGS , Senior District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. 1 The District Court made an independent examination of the record in this case and reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendat..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SAM R. CUMMINGS, Senior District Judge.
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed.1 The District Court made an independent examination of the record in this case and reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Davis' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint and all remaining claims alleged therein are DISMISSED with prejudice.
All relief not expressly granted and any pending motions are denied.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff did not file objections, but he filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel on October 24, 2018, claiming that because he was transferred to a new prison facility he cannot continue his case without the assistance of an attorney. Plaintiff also appears to indicate that because of the timing of his transfer, he did not receive the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation until October 12, 2018. Plaintiff does not otherwise mention or address the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Source: Leagle
