Mitchel Neurock

“recommended that the Court (1) retroactively grant leave for Plaintiff to file his second amended complaint”

“recommended that the Court ... (4) deny Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction”

“(5) deny Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate cases as moot”

“(6) deny Plaintiff’s motion to change venue in his state criminal case”

“Magistrate Judge Neurock made findings and conclusions, and recommended that Defendant Sam’s East Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 49), be granted and that Plaintiffs’ claims against Sam’s East be dismissed.”

Pro se §2254 habeas. Neurock M&R recommended dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for want of prosecution (failure to file the inmate trust-fund account statement / required affidavit despite two warnings); all remaining pending motions (Docs. 5, 7, 10, 11) recommended denied as moot. The recommendation states: "the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s case be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)." This is a failure-to-prosecute dismissal, not a merits motion ruling.

Pro se prisoner §1983 (Victoria Division). Neurock M&R recommended dismissing the §1983 claims without prejudice on 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) screening; Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer (treated as a habeas petition and severed) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel recommended denied as moot. Adopted in full 2023-08-29 by Judge Drew B. Tipton. The recommendation states: "recommended that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims be dismissed without prejudice, (Dkt. Nos. 1, 7), for purposes of screening and 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)." This is a §1915 screening disposition rather than a merits motion ruling.

“Having considered the parties’ filings, the record, and the law, the Court finds that the substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (‘ALJs’) determination that Plaintiff was not disabled. The Court therefore AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner.”

“After review of the parties’ briefing, the record, and relevant law, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court orders that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this case be DISMISSED.”

“On March 14, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R, D.E. 18), recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and that this case be dismissed.”

“DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (D.E. 19) with regard to Plaintiffs’ claim that Wilson failed to properly inspect or secure the load; DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with regard to Plaintiffs’ claims of gross negligence and respondeat superior regarding Wilson’s alleged failure to properly inspect or secure the load; GRANTS summary judgment for Defendants with regard to Plaintiffs’ claim that Wilson failed to exercise ordinary care in his emergency driving maneuvers when the panel began to fall from the trailer; GRANTS summary judgment for Defendants with regard to Plaintiffs’ claims of gross negligence and respondeat superior regarding Wilson’s emergency driving maneuvers when the panel began to fall from the trailer; and GRANTS summary judgment for Defendants with regard to Plaintiffs’ abandoned claim that Wilson failed to properly maintain his truck and trailer.”

“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (D.E. 22), construed as a motion for summary judgment, is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that the district court GRANT the motions and DISMISS Plaintiff’s lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”

“Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 34) be GRANTED and that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”

“For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED IN PART, as to Plaintiff’s request to grow his hair long in accordance with his professed faith, and DENIED IN PART, because a live controversy still exists regarding whether Plaintiff may wear two braids rather than only one.”