Gabriel Miranda v. Kendall County, Texas

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION GABRIEL MIRANDA, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-23-CV-683-FB § KENDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed on November 6, 2025 (docket #23), and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation filed on November 17, 2025 (docket #25). Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of them. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether they are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). On the other hand, any Report or Recommendation to which there are objections requires de novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). In the Report, United States Magistrate Judge Bemporad recommends, following the reasoning Ind. June 22, 2016) (“Simpson I’), aff'd, 863 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Simpson IT’), that Defendant Kendall County’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #18) should be granted and this case dismissed. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's objections and has conducted a de novo review of those issues properly raised by the Plaintiff in his objections. The Court finds, after careful consideration of the record and the Report and Recommendation, that the Plaintiff's objections lack merit and are overruled. Therefore, the Court hereby accepts, approves, and adopts the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation (docket #23), and finds the recommendation should be accepted such that Defendant Kendall County’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #18) should be GRANTED and all of Plaintiff’s claims and this case should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on November 6, 2025 (docket #23), is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant Kendall County’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #18) is GRANTED and all of Plaintiffs claims and this case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions pending, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT, and this case is now CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 30th day of November, 2025.

jeer C Se FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE