Adams v. Franklin County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION KRISTEEN BROOKE ADAMS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-75-RWS-JBB § FRANKLIN COUNTY, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER The above-captioned action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 26, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 63) be denied; (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 53) be granted; and (3) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their individual capacities be dismissed with prejudice. Docket No. 76 at 19. The Magistrate Judge also ordered that, to the extent warranted, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment addressing any claims against them in their official capacities.1 Docket No. 76 at 20.

Plaintiff Kristeen Adams, proceeding pro se, received a copy of the Report and Recommendation via electronic notice on August 26, 2025. See Docket No. 45. No objections have been filed to date. Because no objections have been received, the parties are barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from On August 28, 2025, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment Addressing Plaintiff’s Official Capacity Claims. Docket No. 78. Plaintiff’s response is due September 18, 2025. See Local Rule CV-7(e). appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017); Arriaga Laxminarayan, No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, is of the opinion the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review 1s “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 63) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 53) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants in their individual capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of September, 2025.

[Dohert LU Lbrpectsr G2.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2