Lumsden v. Johnson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

RAYMOND E. LUMSDEN, § #2109472 § § VS. § CIVIL CASE NO. 4:21-CV-960-SDJ § PAUL JOHNSON §

ORDER OF DISMISSAL The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bill Davis, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) (Dkt. #34) concluding that Defendant Johnson’s Motion to Dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) should be denied in part and granted in part and the case dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed Objections (Dkt. #35). Plaintiff’s only objection is that the magistrate judge erred in recommending that his claims be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), supposedly contrary to the precedent established in Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230 (2023), and Gutierrez v. Saenz, 145 S. Ct. 2258 (2025). But Plaintiff misunderstands the procedural posture of both cases. In Reed, the Court found that subject-matter jurisdiction existed because (1) Reed had standing, (2) the Ex parte Young doctrine allows suits for declaratory or injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacities, and (3) the Rooker–Feldman doctrine did not bar the claims. 598 U.S. at 957. In addition, the Court found that Reed’s claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. Id. In Gutierrez, the Court held that the plaintiff had standing to bring his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 145 S. Ct. at 2265. Neither case was considered on the merits. Plaintiff fails to show that the Report is in error or that he is entitled to relief.

The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. Having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff to the Report, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is accordingly ORDERED that Defendant Johnson’s Motion to Dismiss filed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.