-DDB United States of America v. Renda et al, No. 4:2009cv00368 - Document 105 (E.D. Tex. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 101 Report and Recommendations,,, 77 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by United States of America, 80 Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Oscar Renda, Rudolph J. Renda, Renda Environmental, Inc., Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc., 78 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Oscar Renda, Rudolph J. Renda, Renda Environmental, Inc., Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc.. Plaintiff United States of Americas Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 77) is GRANTED, D efendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 78) is DENIED, and Defendants Amended Motion to Reconsider and/or Modify Memorandum Adopting Report and Recommendation of the United Sates Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 80) is DENIED. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit a proposed final judgment for the Courts consideration. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 9/23/11. (cm, ) Modified on 9/26/2011 (cm, ).

Download PDF
-DDB United States of America v. Renda et al Doc. 105 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. OSCAR RENDA, ET AL., Defendants. 4:09cv368 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 8, 2011, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that: (1) Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 77) be GRANTED; (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 78) be DENIED; and (3) Defendants’ Amended Motion to Reconsider and/or Modify Memorandum Adopting Report and Recommendation of the United Sates Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 80) be DENIED. The Court, having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Defendant as well as Plaintiff’s response and Defendant’s reply thereto (see Dkts. 102, 103 & 104), is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the objections of Defendant are without merit. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate 1 Dockets.Justia.com Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. . Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 77) is GRANTED, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 78) is DENIED, and Defendants’ Amended Motion to Reconsider and/or Modify Memorandum Adopting Report and Recommendation of the United Sates Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 80) is DENIED. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit a proposed final judgment for the Court’s consideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 23rd day of September, 2011. ____________________________________ MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.