Ratliff v. Lyde

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: July 28, 2025
• Docket: 7:24-cv-00138
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

EDWARD MICHAEL RATLIFF, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-00138-O-BP § JEFF LYDE, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are the United States Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (the “FCR”) (ECF No. 11), filed May 19, 2025. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and Request to Stay Proceedings on June 9, 2025 (ECF No. 12). On June 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed his proposed Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14). The Court construes Plaintiff’s May 19, 2025, Motion and subsequent proposed Amended Complaint as objections to the Magistrate Judge’s FCR. To that end, Plaintiff’s objections are untimely due to being filed more than fourteen days after issuance of the May 19, 2025, FCR. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2) (“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”). Even if the Court did not consider Plaintiff’s Motion and proposed Amended Complaint as FCR objections, further amendment of Plaintiff’s claims would be futile. The Amended Complaint includes a third cause of action concerning Defendants’ alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment and Americans with Disability Act. ECF No. 14 at 13–15. Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint, though, fail for the same reasons outlined in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR and as a matter of law. Thus, even if the Court does not consider Plaintiff's Motion and proposed Amended Complaint as objections, the Motion would be denied because further amendments would be futile. Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 321 (Sth Cir. 1991) (affirming denial of motion to amend because amendment would be futile). After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge believes that the FCR is correct, and the findings and conclusions therein are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the Court Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 7, 10) are GRANTED, Defendant Clay County’s Second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Jeff Lyde and Clay County are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE subject to Plaintiff's right to reassert them later if the conditions under Heck are met, and Plaintiff's claims against Jose Gonzalez and Judge John Swenson are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED on this 28th day of July, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE