govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-2_24-cv-00295-5

1 / 2 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION 
 
 
JAMES LOGAN DIEZ, 
 
              Plaintiff, 
 
VS. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00295  
  
MR. SCHNEIDER, et al., 
 
              Defendants. 
 
 
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION 
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY  
AND TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL  
 On April 20 , 20 26, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his 
“Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s Motions for Certificate of 
Appealability and to Proceed In Forma Pauperis  on Appeal ” (D.E. 64). Plaintiff was  
provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s 
memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Special 
Order No. C-2023-1. No objections have been timely filed. While Plaintiff filed a Rule 60 
motion to set aside the judgment, it goes to the merits of his action and does not address 
any issue in the memorandum and recommendation, which is limited to his request for a 
certificate of appealability and in forma pauperis status on appeal. See D.E. 70. 
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and 
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error 
on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00295     Document 73     Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 2
2 / 2 
recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus ., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing 
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). 
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the 
Magistrate Judge’s m emorandum and recommendation  (D.E. 64), and all other relevant 
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the 
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for COA 
(D.E. 59) and Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP (D.E. 60) are DENIED. 
 ORDERED on June 1, 2026. 
 
_______________________________ 
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case 2:24-cv-00295     Document 73     Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight