1:12-cv-00270 | E.D. Tex. | Jan 7, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOLLY M. FOLEY and ' VINCENT D. FOLEY, SR., '
' Plaintiffs, ' ' v. ' CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-270 ' TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF ' FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES ' and KALI LITTLE, '
' Defendants. ' ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for all pretrial matters pursuant to an Order of Reference entered on May 31, 2012. The Court has received and considered the report (Doc. No. 20) of the magistrate judge, who recommends that the Court grant the Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 7) and dismiss this case with prejudice. On December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. No. 22.) The Defendants have not filed a response to the Plaintiffs’ objection.
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c); F ED . R. C IV . P. 72(b)(2)–(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright , 677 F.2d 404" date_filed="1982-05-17" court="5th Cir." case_name="Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida">677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415" date_filed="1996-03-28" court="5th Cir." case_name="Paul W. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association">79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In the Plaintiffs’ objection, they do not identify any specific issue of law or fact, among those set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, with which they disagree. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ objection fails to invoke their right to a de novo review of the report and recommendation. Nonetheless, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the report and recommendation, and the Court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct. See Douglass , 79 F.3d 1415" date_filed="1996-03-28" court="5th Cir." case_name="Paul W. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association">79 F.3d at 1429 (noting that a district court may alternatively find the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions were correct even though a party did not properly object to the report and recommendation).
The Plaintiffs’ objection (Doc. No. 22) is OVERRULED ; the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 20) is ADOPTED ; the Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED ; and this lawsuit is DISMISSED with prejudice . Final judgment will be entered separately.
2 of 2