Welsh v. Lamb County, Texas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION LONNIE KADE WELSH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) LAMB COUNTY, TEXAS, ef ai., ) Defendants. ) Civil Action No. 5:20-CV-077-C-BQ ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim.’

The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989).

After due consideration and having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objections should be OVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ' Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation on January 5, 2021, See Doc. 30.

ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint as Plaintiff failed to seek leave of Court to file the same.” See Doc. 31. Any and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.

SO ORDERED.

Dated January Ay y2022.

yw Lf) aBEEA VEE, SAMR. CU GS / | IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ? Even if Plaintiff had sought leave to amend or supplement his claims, the request would be denied because he seeks to present claims of new and different causes of action against different defendants not relevant to his claims in this civil action. “Leave to supplement should not be granted where a plaintiff attempts to present ‘new and different cause[s] of action’” Garcia v. Hackman, No. C-10-311, 2011 WL 2457918, at *19 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 16, 2011) (quoting Griffin v. Cty. Sch, Bd. of Prince Edward Cty., 377 U.S. 218, 226 (1964)).