Fazzino Investments, LP v. Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District

W.D. Texas

Fazzino Investments, LP v. Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided April 15, 2026·No. 6:25-cv-00001·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

§ FAZZINO INVESTMENTS, LP, § Plaintiff, § § v. § CASE NO. 6:25-CV-1-ADA-DTG § BRAZOS VALLEY GROUNDWATER § CONVERSATION DISTRICT, § Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Dkt. 63. The report recommends the Plaintiff Fazzino Investments, LP (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. 31) be DENIED. Id. at 1, 9. The report was filed on March 11, 2026. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff filed objections on March 25, 2026. Dkt. 64. Defendant filed a response on April 8, 2026. Dkt. 65. The Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 63), Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 64), Defendant’s Response (Dkt. 65), and the applicable facts and laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Gilliland (Dkt. 63) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. 64) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. 31) is hereby DENIED.

SIGNED this 15th day of April, 2026.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

§ FAZZINO INVESTMENTS, LP, § Plaintiff, § § v. § CASE NO. 6:25-CV-1-ADA-DTG § BRAZOS VALLEY GROUNDWATER § CONVERSATION DISTRICT, § Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Dkt. 63. The report recommends the Plaintiff Fazzino Investments, LP (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. 31) be DENIED. Id. at 1, 9. The report was filed on March 11, 2026. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff filed objections on March 25, 2026. Dkt. 64. Defendant filed a response on April 8, 2026. Dkt. 65. The Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 63), Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 64), Defendant’s Response (Dkt. 65), and the applicable facts and laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Gilliland (Dkt. 63) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. 64) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. 31) is hereby DENIED.

SIGNED this 15th day of April, 2026.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

Fazzino Investments, LP v. Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District, (W.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Fazzino Investments, LP v. Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District (Fazzino Investments, LP v. Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related