2:25-cv-00322•Valdez v. Wysocki
Gesamter Gesetzestext
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED June 29, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk Case 2:25-cv-00322 Document 13 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
Case 2:25-cv-00322 Document 13 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
Case 2:25-cv-00322 Document13 _ Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION RICARDO VALDEZ, § § Petitioner, § § V. § § LARISSA WYSOCKI, ef al., § § Respondents. § Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southem District of Texas ENTERED June 29, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00322 ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 10). The M&R recommends that the Court: e Grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 9); e Dismiss Petitioner’s petition, (D.E. 1); and e Deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability (“COA”). (D.E. 10, p. 6~7). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No, 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous 1/2 AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO Case 2:25-cv-00322 Documenti13_ Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 10). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 9), and DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition, (D.E. 1). The Court further DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability. The Court will enter a final judgment separately. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address on file by certified mail with return receipt requested. SO ORDERED. DAVIBS. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas June 2642026 2/2
Was bedeutet dieser Text für Ihre Situation?
Kostenlose und unverbindliche Beratung
Schildern Sie uns Ihre Situation. Unser Team meldet sich per E-Mail bei Ihnen für Ihre Beratung.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.