Pendley v. A.R.D. Express, Inc.

N.D. Texas

Pendley v. A.R.D. Express, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 4, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-00169

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Pendley v. A.R.D. Express, Inc., (N.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ABILENE DIVISION TERI PENDLEY, Plaintiff, V. No. 1:23-CV-169-H-BU A.R.D. EXPRESS, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) that the plaintiff's claims against defendant A.R.D. Express, Inc. for negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, monitoring, and entrustment be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. No. 9. No objections were filed. Where no specific objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (Sth Cir. 2020). The District Court has reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCR. The plaintiff's claims against A.R.D. are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, because of the strong policy in favor of granting leave to amend at least once, see Great Plains Tr. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 329 (Sth Cir. 2002), the Court grants the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint within 14 days from the date of this Order.

So ordered on January qf , 2024.

JAME ESLEY HENDRIX UNIVED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ABILENE DIVISION TERI PENDLEY, Plaintiff, V. No. 1:23-CV-169-H-BU A.R.D. EXPRESS, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) that the plaintiff's claims against defendant A.R.D. Express, Inc. for negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, monitoring, and entrustment be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. No. 9. No objections were filed. Where no specific objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (Sth Cir. 2020). The District Court has reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCR. The plaintiff's claims against A.R.D. are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, because of the strong policy in favor of granting leave to amend at least once, see Great Plains Tr. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 329 (Sth Cir. 2002), the Court grants the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint within 14 days from the date of this Order.

So ordered on January qf , 2024.

JAME ESLEY HENDRIX UNIVED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pendley v. A.R.D. Express, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendley-v-ard-express-inc-txnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack