From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salazar v. Wallace

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Mar 5, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-447 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-447

03-05-2019

SOLOMON SALAZAR, Plaintiff, v. DARREN B. WALLACE, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Solomon Salazar, an inmate confined at the Stiles Unit, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. No objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge were filed by the parties.

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 5th day of March, 2019.

/s/_________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Salazar v. Wallace

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Mar 5, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-447 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2019)
Case details for

Salazar v. Wallace

Case Details

Full title:SOLOMON SALAZAR, Plaintiff, v. DARREN B. WALLACE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Date published: Mar 5, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-447 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2019)

Citing Cases

Song v. Unknown Med. Admin.

The orderly and expeditious disposition of cases requires that if a litigant's address changes, he or she has…

Montes v. Comal Cnty.

“THIS AUTHORITY [UNDER RULE 41(B)] FLOWS FROM THE COURT'S INHERENT POWER TO CONTROL ITS DOCKET AND PREVENT…