Williams v. Cox Williams v. Cox (E. D. Tex., 2013)

Copy Citation

ROCKY WILLIAMS
v.
BRANTLEY COX, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9: 13cv54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION

SO ORDERED: May 2, 2013

ROCKY WILLIAMS v. BRANTLEY COX, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9: 13cv54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION

SO ORDERED: May 2, 2013

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT

        The Plaintiff Rocky Williams, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. This Court ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.

        On March 21, 2013, Williams filed a motion asking that his lawsuit be dismissed. On April 1, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted and that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice. Williams received a copy of this Report on April 8, 2013, but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association 79 F. 3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

        The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson 864 F.2d 1219 1221 (5th Cir. ), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S. Ct. 3243

Page 2

(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law. "). It is accordingly

        ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 8) is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

        ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal (docket no. 5) is GRANTED and the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED without prejudice on the motion of the Plaintiff. It is further

        ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED.

        ________________        Ron Clark, United States District Judge