Dave v. Laird

Southern District of Texas ENTERED AUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 25, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION BERI DAVE, § “Plaintiff”, § Vv. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00209 DAVID C. LAIRD, et al., “Defendants”. § AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are these pleadings: Plaintiffs “Complaint for Violations of Civil Rights” (Dkt. No. 1) and “More Definite Statement of All Claims” (Dkt. No. 57), Defendants City of South Padre Island, David C. Laird, and Claudine O’Carroll’s “Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs “More Definite Statement” and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 8 and 12” (“‘MTD”) (Dkt.

No. 55), “Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 62), and Plaintiff s “Objections to Proposed Report and Recommendations by U.S. Magistrate Judge Ignacio Torteya TY” (“Objections”) (Dkt. No. 81).

A party may contest the proposed findings and conclusions in a report and recommendation by filing written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party's objections to portions of a report and recommendation entitle him to de novo review by the Court. See 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1). Objections must specifically identify findings or recommendations in the R&R. The court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987). Proposed findings and recommendations to which no objections were filed are reviewed for clear error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150- 53, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985); Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d 353, 358 (Sth Cir. 2017).

Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. No. 81. But Plaintiff's objections! are conclusive and general. Plaintiff cites neither law nor fact to support his objections, which amount to no more than When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court’s review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint. Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (Sth Cir. 2010). a general exception to the R&R. The Court need not consider such objections and has therefore reviewed the R&R and the record for clear error. See Stafford v. Berryhill, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105778 (W.D.T.X 2019) (citing Battle, 834 F.2d at 421; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (“When no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record to accept the recommendation”). Finding no clear error, the R&R is ADOPTED.

Defendants’ MTD (Dkt. No. 55) is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff's claims against David C. Laird, and all claims against Defendants which stem from the conduct of David C. Laird are DIMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Signed on this Se day of cc) os 6. , 2022.

BER a RoJando Olvera United States District Jud