Herrera v. San Antonio Police Department
Herrera v. San Antonio Police Department
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED SAN ANTONIO DIVISION August 30, 2023 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT SARA HERRERA, § WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS § NM Plaintiff, § BY: ________________________________ § DEPUTY v. § § SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPART- § MENT, FNU GUZMAN, OFFICIAL § CAPACITY, BADGE 2224, POLICE § OFFICER, SAN ANTONIO POLICE § DEPARTMENT; FNU VILLANUEVA, § OFFICIAL CAPACITY, SERGEANT, § CIVIL NO. SA:23-CV-00233-OLG SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPART- § MENT; RYAN LUZA, OFFICIAL CA- § PACITY, SERGEANT, SAN ANTO- § NIO POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOE § FRANK PICAZO, OFFICIAL CA- § PACITY, SAN ANTONIO POLICE § DEPARTMENT; and WILLIAM § MCMANUS, OFFICIAL CAPACITY, § DIRECTOR CHIEF, SAN ANTONIO § POLICE DEPARTMENT, § § Defendants. §
ORDER Before the Court is the above-captioned action, which was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer for the disposition of pro se Plaintiff Sara Herrera’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) Magistrate Judge Farrer issued a report and recommendation (R&R) concerning Herrera’s amended complaint.1 (See Dkt. No. 15, filed July 17, 2023.) Herrera was served with a copy of the R&R (see Dkt. No. 16) and has filed objections (see Dkt. No. 17). When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court must conduct a de novo review as to those portions of the recommendation to which an objection is made. U.S. v. Wilson,
864 F.2d 1219, 1221(5th Cir. 1989);
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
1See Dkt. No. 11. Herrera’s response to Judge Farrer’s Show Cause Order and supplemental filings are construed as an amended complaint. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After such review, the Court finds that the R&R is in all things correct and should be accepted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Farrer’s recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, Plaintiff Sara Herrera’s claims are DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Q). This case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 30th day of August, 2023. oo \ \ ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown