From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lynn v. Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION
Feb 26, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. M-18-162 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. M-18-162

02-26-2019

CARROLL RAY LYNN JR, v. LORIE DAVIS


AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Carroll Ray Lynn has filed a Motion for Class Action Certification, which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On January 28, 2019, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Petitioner's motion for class action certification be denied. On February 11, 2019, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation believing that Petitioner's only response was a request that the case remain on the docket as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 motion. The docket now reveals that Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections have been made. As to those portions to which no objections have been made, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the report for clear error. Finding no error whatsoever, the Court again adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Class Action Certification is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 26th day of February, 2019.

/s/_________

Micaela Alvarez

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Lynn v. Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION
Feb 26, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. M-18-162 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2019)
Case details for

Lynn v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:CARROLL RAY LYNN JR, v. LORIE DAVIS

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 26, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. M-18-162 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2019)

Citing Cases

Eidam v. Faught

Moreover, representing a class is a role for which Plaintiff, as a pro se inmate, is simply not adequate.…