4:16-cv-00852 | S.D. Tex. | Mar 24, 2017
Case 4:16-cv-00852 Document 51 Filed in TXSD on 03/24/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION E RIKA A RROYO , § § Plaintiff , § § v. § C IVIL A CTION H-16-852 § O PRONA , I NC ., et al., § § Defendants . § O RDER A DOPTING M EMORANDUM AND R ECOMMENDATION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the court must review decisions on nondispositive motions by the magistrate judge and “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Stevens , 487 F.3d 232" date_filed="2007-05-16" court="5th Cir." case_name="United States v. Raul Javier Stevens Alejandro Stevens">487 F.3d 232, 240 (5th Cir. 2007)(quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A legal conclusion is contrary to law when the magistrate judge fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure. Ambrose-Frazier v. Herzing Inc. , No. 15-1324, 2016 WL 890406, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 9, 2016).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation and the objections filed thereto, the court is of the opinion that the Memorandum and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Memorandum and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED by this Court. Rosen Swiss AG shall be dismissed by separate order.
Signed at Houston, Texas on March 24, 2017. ___________________________________ Gray H. Miller United States District Judge