Richard Grega, et al. v. City of Canton, Texas, c/o City Secretary, et al.

Opinion

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

RICHARD GREGA, et al. § §

§ Plaintiffs, §

§ v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-90-JDK-JDL

§ CITY OF CANTON, TEXAS, c/o CITY § SECRETARY, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiffs, members of the Mennonite church (“Member Plaintiffs”) and those claiming to have interest in the Mennonite church (“Non-Member Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 20, 2025. Docket No. 1. On November 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Non-Member Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, and that the Member Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Docket No. 101. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the state claims be dismissed without prejudice. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff Richard Grega filed objections to the Report. Docket No. 103. The Court reviews objected-to portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”). The Court conducting a de novo review examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Plaintiff’s only objection to the Report was to the discussion that an amended complaint was not timely received as ordered by the court. Docket No. 103. Plaintiff claims that the amended complaint was timely mailed but not received by the Clerk’s office. Id. Even if this was true, the Plaintiff’s objection is non-responsive to the

actual reason for the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal: the Non- Members lack standing and the claims brought by the Member Plaintiffs fail to state a claim. Because no objections to the Report have been made to the substantive conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass,

79 F.3d at 1430. Having reviewed these conclusions, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 101) is ADOPTED. The Non-Member Plaintiffs’ federal claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of standing, and the Member Plaintiffs’ federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ state claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of January, 2026. C5, A Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE