Gutierrez v. Akorede

N.D. Texas

Gutierrez v. Akorede

District Court, N.D. Texas·Decided April 30, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-00075·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION JOE C. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff, Vv. 2:25-CV-075-Z-BR JAMIYU L. AKOREDE, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation (“FCR”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 16) to grant Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12). No objections to the FCR have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the District Judge concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct.! It is therefore ORDERED that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED and Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's state-law claims of negligence, assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress are DISMISSED without prejudice.

1 The FCR recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on an immunity created by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 101.106(f). ECF No. 16 at 2-3. The Court notes that while dismissal under Section 101.106(f) is clearly appropriate, it is not entirely clear whether state statutory immunity implicates this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Compare Anthology, Inc. v. Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist., 136 F.4th 549, 553 (5th Cir. 2025) (Oldham, J.) (“{S]tate-created immunities do not and cannot limit the jurisdiction of federal courts.”), with Curley v. Gonzalez, No. 3:15-CV-1341, 2017 WL 4351073, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2017) (finding that because dismissal under Section 101.106(f) “involves immunity, it appears to be a jurisdictional matter”). But even if this issue is not strictly jurisdictional, the Court would have construed the Motion under Rule 12(c) and granted it for the same reasons described in the FCR. See Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 587 F.3d 314, 317 n.5 (5th Cir. 2009) (construing motions to dismiss filed after the answer as motions for judgment on the pleadings).

SO ORDERED. Logue April ©, 2026 MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK 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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION JOE C. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff, Vv. 2:25-CV-075-Z-BR JAMIYU L. AKOREDE, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation (“FCR”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 16) to grant Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12). No objections to the FCR have been filed. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the District Judge concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct.! It is therefore ORDERED that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED and Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's state-law claims of negligence, assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress are DISMISSED without prejudice.

1 The FCR recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on an immunity created by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 101.106(f). ECF No. 16 at 2-3. The Court notes that while dismissal under Section 101.106(f) is clearly appropriate, it is not entirely clear whether state statutory immunity implicates this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Compare Anthology, Inc. v. Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist., 136 F.4th 549, 553 (5th Cir. 2025) (Oldham, J.) (“{S]tate-created immunities do not and cannot limit the jurisdiction of federal courts.”), with Curley v. Gonzalez, No. 3:15-CV-1341, 2017 WL 4351073, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2017) (finding that because dismissal under Section 101.106(f) “involves immunity, it appears to be a jurisdictional matter”). But even if this issue is not strictly jurisdictional, the Court would have construed the Motion under Rule 12(c) and granted it for the same reasons described in the FCR. See Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 587 F.3d 314, 317 n.5 (5th Cir. 2009) (construing motions to dismiss filed after the answer as motions for judgment on the pleadings).

Gutierrez v. Akorede, (N.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Gutierrez v. Akorede (Gutierrez v. Akorede) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related