IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

MICHAEL R. HAMILTON, § Plaintiff, § § 6:22-CV-01292-ADA-JCM v. § § CITY OF LOTT, TEXAS, § Defendant. § §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. ECF No. 9. The Report recommends that this Court deny as moot the City of Lott’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 3), grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6), and dismiss the claims against Defendant. The Report and Recommendation was filed on June 1, 2023. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court.

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

(5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff filed objections and a motion to remand on June 15, 2023. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to recommend remand of the remaining state law claim once he recommended dismissal of the federal claims. Id. at 1. Plaintiff also argues that even if it had been proper to proceed to analyze the state law claim, the Magistrate Judge erred as to the law and facts of the state law claim. Id. On June 27, 2023, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections and motion to remand. ECF No. 11. In its response, Defendant notes that the Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed. Id. at 2. Defendant argues that the Court should exercise

jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case. Id. On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its objections. ECF No. 12. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the motion to dismiss, the responses, the report and recommendation, the objections to the report and recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be adopted in its entirety. While Plaintiff complains the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to recommend remand of the remaining state law claims once he recommended dismissal of the federal claims, after considering the relevant law and the arguments of the parties, the Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under

(c). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Manske, ECF No. 9, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT in accordance with the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court’s clerk is directed to close this case. SIGNED this 3rd day of July, 2023.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG