Edward C. Scott v. Harris County, Texas, et al.

January 23, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EDWARD C. SCOTT, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:24-cv-04139 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, § et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Edward C. Scott sues Defendants Harris County, Texas, and May Walker. He filed an amended complaint on December 16, 2024, and brings claims for age discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, constructive termination, and negligence per se. Dkt 6 at ¶¶28–68.

Walker filed a motion to dismiss for improper service and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. Dkt 14. She notes that Plaintiff didn’t serve her until April 4, 2025. Id at 5; see also Dkt 13 at 2 (proof of service). Rule 4(m) required Plaintiff to serve Walker within 90 days of filing the amended complaint—meaning by March 16, 2025.

The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 3. Judge Palermo issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted and the claims against Walker be dismissed under Rule 4(m).

Dkt 16 at 2. She also noted that Plaintiff’s claims are against Walker in her official capacity such that these claims would merge with those against Harris County if repleaded. She thus recommended dismissal with prejudice. Ibid.

The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983).

No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 16.

The motion by Defendant May Walker to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 14.

The claims by Plaintiff Edward C. Scott against Defendant May Walker are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

Signed on January 22, 2026, at Houston, Texas.

Z.

Honorable Charles Eskridge United States District Judge