Feedback

Allen V Crow

                                                                    Southern District of Texas 
                                                                      ENTERED 
                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT              N  uly 23, 2028 
                        SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS                athan □□□□□□□□ Clerk 
                          CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION 
DANNY ALLEN,                         § 
       Plaintiff, 
Vv.                                               CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00225 
MICHAEL CROW, et al., 
       Defendants. 
          ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION 
      Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation 
(“M&R”). (D.E. 36). The M&R recommends that the Court: 
   e   Retain Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Lt.  Jane Doe; 
   e   Retain Plaintiff's equal protection claim against Warden Michael Crow and Lt. Jane Doe; 
   e   Dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff's claims for money damages against Defendants in 
      their official capacities for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 
   e   Dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against all other Defendants for failure to state 
      a claim. 
Id. at 16. 
      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 
States  v.  Wilson,  864  F.2d  1219,  1221  (Sth  Cir.  1989)  (per  curiam);  Powell v.  Litton  Loan 
Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141,  at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, 

1/2 

J.) (citation omitted). 
     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 ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 36). Accordingly, the Court: 
  e   RETAINS Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Lt.  Jane Doe; 
  e   RETAINS Plaintiff's equal protection claim against Warden Michael Crow and Lt. Jane 
     Doe; 
  e   DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's claims for money damages against Defendants 
     in their official capacities for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 
  e   DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs claims against all other Defendants for failure 
     to state a claim. 
     SO ORDERED.                                 
                                           en 
                                          CUM 
                                        Ne    VA 
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas 
     July 232025 

2/2