Darnell v. Jolly

N.D. Texas

Darnell v. Jolly

DecidedOctober 4, 2019

Docket2:18-cv-00142

StatusUnknown

This text of Darnell v. Jolly (Darnell v. Jolly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darnell v. Jolly, (N.D. Tex. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

US, NORTHERN RIT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FIL ED. OF TEXAS FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION OCT ~4 2019 GARY ALLEN DARNELL, § Cia oo § by ff DISTRICpS Plaintiff, § a Soo COURT § Meena ne pe V. § □□□ § CHRIS JOLLY, Police Chief § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-142-Z-BQ of Memphis, TX, § § Defendant. § § ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS On May 30, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge entered findings and conclusions after review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 46). The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's claims against the City of Memphis, TX (“City”) be dismissed in accordance with Title 28, United States Code sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). No objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the City violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights through an official policy or “governmental custom, even if such custom has not received formal approval.” See Zarno w. City of Wichita Falls, 614 F.3d 161, 166 (Sth Cir. 2010). Plaintiff also failed to allege facts sufficient to support his failure to train claim against the City. See Conner v. Travis Cty., 209 F.3d 794, 796 (Sth Cir. 2000) (listing three factors that a plaintiff must demonstrate to assert a valid failure to train claim against a municipality).

It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED. Plaintiff's claims against the City of Memphis, TX are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with Title 28, United States Code sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). SO ORDERED. SIGNED October 4, 2019.

UNWED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

US, NORTHERN RIT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FIL ED. OF TEXAS FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION OCT ~4 2019 GARY ALLEN DARNELL, § Cia oo § by ff DISTRICpS Plaintiff, § a Soo COURT § Meena ne pe V. § □□□ § CHRIS JOLLY, Police Chief § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-142-Z-BQ of Memphis, TX, § § Defendant. § § ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS On May 30, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge entered findings and conclusions after review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 46). The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's claims against the City of Memphis, TX (“City”) be dismissed in accordance with Title 28, United States Code sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). No objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the City violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights through an official policy or “governmental custom, even if such custom has not received formal approval.” See Zarno w. City of Wichita Falls, 614 F.3d 161, 166 (Sth Cir. 2010). Plaintiff also failed to allege facts sufficient to support his failure to train claim against the City. See Conner v. Travis Cty., 209 F.3d 794, 796 (Sth Cir. 2000) (listing three factors that a plaintiff must demonstrate to assert a valid failure to train claim against a municipality).

It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED. Plaintiff's claims against the City of Memphis, TX are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with Title 28, United States Code sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). SO ORDERED. SIGNED October 4, 2019.

UNWED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Darnell v. Jolly, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darnell-v-jolly-txnd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack