Koenig v. Montgomery County Texas

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-04533
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 01, 2025 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION ROBBIE KOENIG, et al § VS CIVIL ACTION NO. H: 24-4533 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court in the above referenced proceeding is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 23); Magistrate Judge Bennett’s Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 26); and Plaintiff's multiple objections (Doc. Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43) to the Memorandum and Recommendation. The Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the filings, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion. The Court notes that in the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge noted that the Motion to Dismiss was not responded to and thus under our Local Rules would normally be considered unopposed. The Local Rules of the Southern District of Texas state that “[fJailure to respond to a motion will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S. Dist. Tex. L.R. 7.4; see also Hanen L.R. 7(D). Therefore, if controlling the local rules would allow the Court to grant Defendant’s motion as it should be considered unopposed. Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has explained that ‘although we have endorsed the adoption of local rules that require parties to file responses to opposed motions, we have not approved the automatic grant, upon failure to comply with such rules, of motions that are dispositive of the litigation. See Johnson v. Pettiford, 442, F.3d 917, 918 (Sth Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 757 F.2d 698, 707-09 (Sth Cir. 1985); Ramsey v. Signal Delivery Serv., 631 F.2d 1210, 1213-14 (Sth

Cir. 2980)). In other words, where a party does not respond to a summary judgment motion, such failure does not permit the court to enter a “default” summary judgment. Eversley v. Mbank □□□□□□ 843 F.2d 172, 174 (Sth Cir. 1988). This Court notes that the Magistrate Judge followed the Circuit’s dictates and performed the required review and did not enter a “default” dismissal order. Instead, he meticulously walked through and weighed the law and pleadings. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Objections (Doc. Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43) are OVERRULED; the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 26) is ADOPTED; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 and inverse condemnation claims; and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED that the remainder of Plaintiffs’ case as to quiet title and declaratory judgment claims is hereby REMANDED to the 457" Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. SIGNED on this 4 ot day of September 2025. \

“ANDREW S, HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE