Hicks v. Nino

S.D. Texas

Hicks v. Nino

DecidedJanuary 6, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-00331

StatusUnknown

This text of Hicks v. Nino (Hicks v. Nino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hicks v. Nino, (S.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 07, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ALVIN HICKS, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-331 § ANDREW NINO, et al, § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND TO RETAIN CASE On December 9, 2019, on an initial screening of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Act complaint, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss Certain Claims and to Retain Case” (D.E. 8). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 8), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the excessive force claim against Sergeant Andrew Nino in his individual capacity is RETAINED. The Court further exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Sergeant Nino in his individual capacity, which claim is RETAINED. All claims against Defendants TDCJ, Lt. Zambrano, Officer Olazaba, and unknown officers are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's state law negligence claim against Sergeant Nino is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff's claim for money damages against Sergeant Nino in his official capacity is DISMISSED as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 07, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ALVIN HICKS, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-331 § ANDREW NINO, et al, § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND TO RETAIN CASE On December 9, 2019, on an initial screening of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Act complaint, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss Certain Claims and to Retain Case” (D.E. 8). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 8), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the excessive force claim against Sergeant Andrew Nino in his individual capacity is RETAINED. The Court further exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Sergeant Nino in his individual capacity, which claim is RETAINED. All claims against Defendants TDCJ, Lt. Zambrano, Officer Olazaba, and unknown officers are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's state law negligence claim against Sergeant Nino is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff's claim for money damages against Sergeant Nino in his official capacity is DISMISSED as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hicks v. Nino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-nino-txsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack