The opinion
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT oe
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MARK ANTHONY DISHMAN, JR., §
Plaintiff,
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00258
C.0. COX, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s amended Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 30). The M&R withdraws the December 15, 2022 M&R, (D.E.
17), and recommends dismissing all Plaintiffs claims as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim
on which relief may be granted. (D.E. 30, p. 1, 15). The M&R further recommends the dismissal
of this case count as a strike for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Jd at 1, 15. This amended
M&R is largely a result of the magistrate judge’s review of evidence that Defendant Cox submitted
to support his motion for summary judgment. See id. at 10-11 (examining D.E. 25-1 and D.E. 25-
2). Defendant Cox moved for summary judgment, in part, on qualified immunity grounds. See
(D.E. 25, p. 4-5, 6-8, 12-13). Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant Cox’s motion for summary
judgment. See LR 7.4 (“Failure to respond to a motion will be taken as a representation of no
opposition.”).
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
1/2
States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger
Holdings Corp., 512 F. Supp. 3d 741, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.).
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
or contrary to law, the Court VACATES its previous order adopting the magistrate judge’s initial
M&R, (D.E. 28), and ADOPTS the amended M&R in its entirety, (D.E. 30). Plaintiff's claims are
DISMISSED. (D.E. 1). Further, the Court ORDERS that dismissal of this case count as a strike
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to send notice of this
dismissal to the manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at
Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov. Defendant Cox’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED
without prejudice as moot. (D-.E. 25). A final judgment wiii be entered separately.
SO ORDERED. .
DAVID □□ MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas
April 28, 2023
2/2