Jessica Nichols, et al. v. United States of America

W.D. Texas

Jessica Nichols, et al. v. United States of America

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided July 1, 2026·No. 6:24-cv-00429·Unknown

Opinion

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

§ JESSICA NICHOLS, et al., § Plaintiffs, § § v. § CASE NO. 6:24-CV-429-ADA-DTG § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 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. 31. The report recommends that this Court DENY-IN-PART and GRANT-IN-PART Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12). Id. at 1, 15. Specifically, Judge Gilliland recommends that the Motion be DENIED as to the negligence claim based on a negligent undertaking and be GRANTED as to the plaintiffs’ negligence per se claim. The report was filed on June 10, 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)). Defendant filed objections on June 24, 2026. Dkt. 32. The Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 31), Defendant’s objections (Dkt. 32), and the applicable facts and law. 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. 31) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Objections (Dkt. 32) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12) is hereby DENIED-IN-PART and GRANTED-IN-Part. Specifically, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as to the negligence claim based on a negligent undertaking and be GRANTED as to the plaintiffs’ negligence per se claim.

SIGNED this Ist day of July, 2026.

OQ. Oboe Ls 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

§ JESSICA NICHOLS, et al., § Plaintiffs, § § v. § CASE NO. 6:24-CV-429-ADA-DTG § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 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. 31. The report recommends that this Court DENY-IN-PART and GRANT-IN-PART Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12). Id. at 1, 15. Specifically, Judge Gilliland recommends that the Motion be DENIED as to the negligence claim based on a negligent undertaking and be GRANTED as to the plaintiffs’ negligence per se claim. The report was filed on June 10, 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)). Defendant filed objections on June 24, 2026. Dkt. 32. The Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 31), Defendant’s objections (Dkt. 32), and the applicable facts and law. 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. 31) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Objections (Dkt. 32) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12) is hereby DENIED-IN-PART and GRANTED-IN-Part. Specifically, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as to the negligence claim based on a negligent undertaking and be GRANTED as to the plaintiffs’ negligence per se claim.

SIGNED this Ist day of July, 2026.

OQ. Oboe Ls ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

Jessica Nichols, et al. v. United States of America, (W.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Jessica Nichols, et al. v. United States of America (Jessica Nichols, et al. v. United States of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related