Aviles v. Astrue
Filing
12
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re: 11 Memorandum and Recommendations, GRANTING 6 MOTION for Summary Judgment.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, )
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ALFRED AVILES,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. C-11-301
§
§
§
§
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On March 6, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Brian L. Owsley issued his
“Memorandum and Recommendation on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment” (D.E.
11).
The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 11), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for
1/2
summary judgment (D.E. 9) is DENIED and the Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (D.E. 6) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2012.
___________________________________
Nelva Gonzales Ramos
United States District Judge
2/2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
