Warfield v. Livingston, No. 6:2014cv00542 - Document 22 (E.D. Tex. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING 21 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the civil action be and hereby s DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the motion of the Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 2/12/2015. (gsg)

Download PDF
Warfield v. Livingston Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION MARK ADRIAN WARFIELD § v. § BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv542 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT The Plaintiff Mark Warfield, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. 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. Warfield filed a motion asking that his lawsuit be dismissed. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that this motion be granted and the lawsuit dismissed without prejudice. No objections were filed to this Report; accordingly, the parties are 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 proposed 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 determined 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 (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 1 Dockets.Justia.com . ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 21) is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that 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. SIGNED this 12th day of February, 2015. ____________________________________ 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.