UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ABEL MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. SA-24-CV-01381-JKP

SOUTH SAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, TEXAS, STEVE GOMEZ, OFFICER OF THE SOUTH SAN ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUED IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACI- TY; MANUEL LOPEZ, PRESIDENT OF SCHOOL BOARD, SUED IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; AND JUAN CONTRERAS, SERGEANT OF THE SOUTH SAN ISD POLICE DEPART- MENT, SUED IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY;

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. ECF Nos. 13-16. Plaintiff Abel Martinez did not respond to any Motion. Upon consideration, the Mo- tions to Dismiss are GRANTED. Martinez’s causes of action that may be asserted based upon the facts supporting this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is di- rected to close this case. Factual Background Martinez filed this suit on December 3, 2024, alleging Defendants violated his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and his rights under

. All Defendants followed this Court’s Standing Order procedure and notified Martinez’s counsel in writing of their intent to file Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and providing their per- ceived bases for such dismissal. Pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order, Martinez filed an Amended Complaint to cure any deficiencies. ECF Nos. 8,9,12. Defendants then filed independ- ent Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim contending the Amended Complaint did not

cure the bases for dismissal for failure to state a claim. ECF Nos. 13-16. Martinez’s responses to the Motions to Dismiss were due January 17, 2025. However, Martinez, who is represent- ed by counsel, did not respond. Discussion When a party fails to respond to a motion, “the court may grant the motion as unop- posed.” W.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7(d)(2). The Court may apply this terminal Local Rule to dispositive motions to dismiss. Suarez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-664,

, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2015); Hernandez v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co., No. EP-12- CV-282,

, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2012).

This Court declines to review the substantive merits of Martinez’s asserted causes of ac- tion because he is represented by counsel, Defendants’ counsel apprised Martinez’s counsel of perceived bases for dismissal of this suit, and Martinez amended his Complaint yet failed to re- spond to the subsequent Motions to Dismiss. This procedural posture indicates Martinez declines to participate or continue to litigate this matter. Based upon Martinez’s failure to respond, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss as unopposed. See W.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7(d)(2). Martinez’s causes of action that may be asserted related to the facts supporting this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court withdraws the referral of all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Farrer. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to close this case.

It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 29th day of January, 2025. C\ NL) / ALIS VAALLANV\ JASON PULLIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE