AGiza v. Bexar County

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DALILA AGIZA, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-cv-00556-FB (HJB) § BEXAR COUNTY, ET AL., § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 10) recommending Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in part and that she be ordered to amend her complaint once more to remove all but the claim for which dismissal is not recommended, along with Plaintiff’s written objections (docket no. 16) thereto. Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). On the other hand, any Report and Recommendation to which objection is made requires de novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). The Court has thoroughly analyzed Plaintiffs submission in light of the entire record. As required by Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this cause and has conducted a de novo review with respect to those matters raised by the objections. After due consideration, the Court concludes the objections lack merit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 10) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiff’ s Complaint is DISMISSED IN PART, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to amend her complaint to remove all of her claims except for her new 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Bexar County Precinct 1 Constable with badge number 1114, the other county officers who allegedly assisted him or her, and Attorney Alex Perez for unlawful seizure of her property on May 30, 2025. Plaintiff's amended pleading shall be limited to 20 pages, including attachments. The remainder of Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)1). This case continues to be referred to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 29th day of July, 2025.

Feet CF D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-