Wells v. Collier et al, No. 9:2017cv00080 - Document 64 (E.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel 48 is DENIED, subject to reconsideration if this Court later determines that appointment of counsel is necessary. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 9/23/18. (ljw, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wells v. Collier et al Doc. 64 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION WILLIAM J. WELLS § VS. § BRYAN COLLIER, et al., § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-80 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, William J. Wells, an inmate formerly confined at the Eastham Unit with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends plaintiff’s motion for class certification be denied. The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the records, and pleadings. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket entry nos. 43). This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). As outlined by the Magistrate Judge, plaintiff does not meet all of the requirements necessary for class certification set forth in Rule 23(a). ORDER Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel (docket entry no. 48) is DENIED, subject to reconsideration if this Court later determines that appointment of counsel is necessary. So Ordered and Signed Sep 23, 2018 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
