Vela v. Thaler, No. 2:2011cv00395 - Document 23 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITIONER'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND FINAL JUDGMENT re: 22 Memorandum and Recommendations, (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(amireles, )

Download PDF
Vela v. Thaler Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ASENCION VELA, Petitioner, VS. RICK THALER, Respondent. § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. C-11-395 § § § § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND FINAL JUDGMENT On May 21, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Brian L. Owsley issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Final Judgment” (D.E. 22). 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. 22), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the 1/2 Dockets.Justia.com findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (D.E. 21) is DENIED. ORDERED this 6th day of June, 2012. ___________________________________ NELVA GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2

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.