Eve Escobedo v. Rogelio Carlos Gonzalez

W.D. Texas

Eve Escobedo v. Rogelio Carlos Gonzalez

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided December 8, 2025·No. 5:24-cv-01363·Unknown

Opinion

FILED December 08, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM DEPUTY EVE ESCOBEDO, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. SA-24-CV-01363-OLG ROGELIO CARLOS GONZALEZ, : Defendant. : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed November 18, 2025, concerning Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (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 14 days. FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, timely filed her objections on December 1, 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. Civ. 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.

The Court, having reviewed the entirety of the R&R de novo, finds that Plaintiff's objections should be and hereby are OVERRULED. Finding that it is in all things correct, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 31) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s federal claims are therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, while her claims under state law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to her ability to raise those claims in state court. The stay is LIFTED, and this case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this day of December 2025. Mes. he ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

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

FILED December 08, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM DEPUTY EVE ESCOBEDO, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. SA-24-CV-01363-OLG ROGELIO CARLOS GONZALEZ, : Defendant. : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed November 18, 2025, concerning Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (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 14 days. FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, timely filed her objections on December 1, 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. Civ. 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.

The Court, having reviewed the entirety of the R&R de novo, finds that Plaintiff's objections should be and hereby are OVERRULED. Finding that it is in all things correct, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 31) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 8) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s federal claims are therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, while her claims under state law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to her ability to raise those claims in state court. The stay is LIFTED, and this case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this day of December 2025. Mes. he ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

Eve Escobedo v. Rogelio Carlos Gonzalez, (W.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Eve Escobedo v. Rogelio Carlos Gonzalez (Eve Escobedo v. Rogelio Carlos Gonzalez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related