Davis v. El Paso County

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

DORIS DAVIS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-23-CV-287-KC § EL PASO MHMR and EL PASO § COUNTY, § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered the above-captioned case. On August 29, 2023, the Court referred Defendant El Paso County’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief, ECF No. 4, to United States Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Aug. 29, 2023, Text Order. On September 26, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendations (“R&R”), ECF No. 7, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. R&R 1. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that, because “the defect in Davis’s pleading is not incurable, and Davis has not yet sought to amend her original state-court petition,” she “should be granted an opportunity to amend.” R&R 9. Parties have fourteen days from service of a Report and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).1 Over fourteen days have elapsed since all parties were served with the R&R, and no objections have been filed. See R&R. Instead, Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint. Mot. for Leave, ECF No. 11.

1 Federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made . . . .”). When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). After reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See id. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 7, in its entirety, and ORDERS that Defendant El] Paso County’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against El Paso County, as filed in her Original Petition, ECF No. 1-3, are DISMISSED with leave to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 11th day of October, 2023.

Ghar [Ndr Yaghinc fens UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE