David Ferguson, et al. v. Evans Delivery Company, Inc., et al.

E.D. Texas

David Ferguson, et al. v. Evans Delivery Company, Inc., et al.

DecidedJanuary 26, 2026

Docket6:25-cv-00472

StatusUnknown

This text of David Ferguson, et al. v. Evans Delivery Company, Inc., et al. (David Ferguson, et al. v. Evans Delivery Company, Inc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Ferguson, et al. v. Evans Delivery Company, Inc., et al., (E.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

DAVID FERGUSON, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-472-JDK-JDL § EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC., § et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is Defendants Evans Delivery Company, Inc. (“Evans Delivery”) and Dionne Williams’ (collectively “Defendants”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket No. 2. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On December 29, 2025, Judge Love issued a report recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted-in-part and denied-in-part, specifically granted as to Plaintiffs’ claims for direct liability and ratification against Defendant Evans Delivery and denied as to Plaintiffs’ allegations of gross negligence. Docket No. 8. Neither party has filed objections, and the time-frame for doing so has passed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and findings, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 8) as the opinion of this Court. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ claims for direct liability and ratification against Defendant Evans Delivery and DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claims for gross negligence. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies of their claims for direct liability and ratification. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days of the issuance of this order. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of January, 2026.

JHKREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

DAVID FERGUSON, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-472-JDK-JDL § EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC., § et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is Defendants Evans Delivery Company, Inc. (“Evans Delivery”) and Dionne Williams’ (collectively “Defendants”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket No. 2. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On December 29, 2025, Judge Love issued a report recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted-in-part and denied-in-part, specifically granted as to Plaintiffs’ claims for direct liability and ratification against Defendant Evans Delivery and denied as to Plaintiffs’ allegations of gross negligence. Docket No. 8. Neither party has filed objections, and the time-frame for doing so has passed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and findings, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 8) as the opinion of this Court. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ claims for direct liability and ratification against Defendant Evans Delivery and DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claims for gross negligence. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies of their claims for direct liability and ratification. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days of the issuance of this order. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of January, 2026.

JHKREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

David Ferguson, et al. v. Evans Delivery Company, Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-ferguson-et-al-v-evans-delivery-company-inc-et-al-txed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack