Madrigal
v.
Russell Tr. Ass'n

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISIONJan 23, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-340 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2018)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-340

01-23-2018

REYNALDO MADRIGAL, Plaintiff, v. RUSSELL TRUST ASSOCIATION, et al, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR REFUND

On January 5, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his "Memorandum and Recommendation" (D.E. 13), recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (D.E. 10) be denied. Plaintiff was 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. 13), 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 Motion for Reconsideration (D.E. 10) is DENIED.

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's letter request, treated as a motion, seeking a refund of his filing fee. D.E. 14. His reasoning is that he did not receive his day in court. After due consideration, the Court DENIES the motion (D.E. 14).

ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2018.

/s/_________


NELVA GONZALES RAMOS


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE