Bays v. New Braunfels Police Department

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS March 12, 2025 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT SAN ANTONIO DIVISION WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS OLIVIA BAYS, § BY: NM § DEPUTY Plaintiff, § § § § NEW BRAUNFELS POLICE DE- § PARTMENT; CITY OF NEW § BRAUNFELS, TEXAS; DETECTIVE § CIVIL NO. SA-23-CV-01566-OLG CHRISTOPHER DIAZ; CHIEF OF § POLICE KEITH LANE, NEW § BRAUNFELS, TEXAS; ASSISTANT § CHIEF JOE VARGAS, NEW BRAUN-_ § FELS, TEXAS; OFFICER JOEL § HAWK; OFFICER TIMOTHY SHAF- § FER; OFFICER 2 J. DOE; and OF- § FICER JOHN DOE, § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed February 3, 2025, concerning the Amended Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants (Dkt. No. 29). (See R&R, Dkt. No. 31.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff was electronically served with a copy of the R&R on February 4, 2025, and timely filed a Motion to Reconsider, which the Court construes as Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R, on February 18, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 33).

When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Clv. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need

not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. Although the Court cannot discern any specific objection to the R&R in Plaintiff’s filing, it has reviewed the entirety of the R&R de novo and finds that the recommendation is in all things correct and should be accepted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. No. 33) is DENIED. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 31) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are DISMISSED. □ This case is CLOSED. It isso ORDERED.

SIGNED itis \ day of March, 2025 : □□ VAL ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

‘Based on the record, the two John Doe officers have been neither identified nor served. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against these defendants WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See FED. R. CIv. P. 4(m).