Lee Ann Reno

“Further, the Court should DENY Castillo's remaining habeas claim as meritless.”

“So construed the motion to amend should be DENIED as futile.”

“It is further RECOMMENDED that Sheriff Riley's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED on the claim of failure to intervene as it relates to the use of force against Plaintiff Ramirez by Deputy Killian.”

“the Court recommends that the Objections be GRANTED in part and OVERRULED in part, the Motion to Strike be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.”

“it is the RECOMMENDATION ... that the complaint filed by plaintiff NORMAN L. AGNEW be DISMISSED as barred by the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). This dismissal should be without prejudice to plaintiff's right to reopen the case if he pays the $400.00 filing and administrative fees ...”

“it is the RECOMMENDATION ... that the complaint filed by plaintiff REIDIE JACKSON be DISMISSED as barred by the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g). This dismissal should be without prejudice to plaintiff's right to reopen the case if he pays the $400.00 filing and administrative fees ...”

Reno recommended accepting the defendant's felony guilty plea under 21 U.S.C. § 841. Judge Kacsmaryk adopted the recommendation in full, adjudged the defendant guilty, and referred the mandatory-detention issue back to Reno. This ministerial plea proceeding is not treated as a contested merits motion.

“For the above reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the City’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 3] be DENIED without prejudice as moot.”

“For the above reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States Senior District Judge that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF 9] be DENIED without prejudice as moot.”

“It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States Senior District Judge that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 15] be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: granted as to Apollo's claims under the Texas Administrative Code alleged in Count I., but denied as to Apollo's claims under the Emergency Care Statutes alleged in Count I.; granted as to Apollo's claims under the ACA in Count V.; and denied as to Apollo's claims under Insurance Code Chapter 541 in Count II.”

“It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the federal habeas corpus application (ECF 3) filed by Petitioner Augustin Pineda be DISMISSED.”

“it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Petitioner be DISMISSED as moot.”

“Defendants are not in default and, contrary to Slate's representation in his motion (ECF 18 at 1), default has not been entered by the Clerk. The motion for default judgment should be DENIED.”

“The motion for summary judgment is premature, but in any event fails to establish that Slate is entitled to judgment. The motion for summary judgment should be DENIED.”

“For the reasons discussed herein, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that Plaintiff's pending motions be DENIED, and that the claims of plaintiff, John Slate, be DISMISSED.”

“As set forth above, the U.S. Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); specifically, that the Court dismiss without prejudice all claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities. The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) be GRANTED as to all claims against Defendants Lumpkin, Gonzales, Williamson and T. King and that it otherwise be denied. Lastly, the U.S. Magistrate Judge recommends allowing Herod to amend his pleading within 20 days of the District Judge ruling on this FCR solely for the purpose of specifying the injunctive relief he seeks against Defendants, and repleading his cause of action against T. King for failing to render aid. The only claims not recommended for dismissal are those claims against Defendant J. King in her individual capacity.”