Webster v. O'Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

LARRY E. WEBSTERJR., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL NO. W-22-CV-00913-ADA § MARTIN O'MALLEY, § COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § WHITNEY THORP, CZARNOWSKI § DISPLAY SERVICE, INC., RITSEMA § LAW FIRM, TAMA LEVINE, PAUL § FELD, DOUG STRATTON, JOSEPH § MERKEL, KAREN GIDDINGS, § KELLY CHERF, BRITTNEY § BRATTON, TRUMBULL § INSURANCE, GALLAGHER § BASSETT SERVICES, JACK § ANDRADE, STACY REBER, § MICHELLE ATKISSON, § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. ECF No. 134. The report recommends Defendants Kilol Kijakazi and Whitney Thorp’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) and Defendants Czarnowski Display Service, Inc., Karen Giddings, Kelly Cherf, Brittney Bratton, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Jack Andrade, Stacey Reber, Michelle Atkisson, Trumbull Insurance Company, Ritsema Law, LLC, Tama Levine, Paul Feld, and Doug Stratton’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 107) (collectively, “Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss”) be GRANTED and the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The report and recommendation was filed on November 12, 2024. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff Larry E. Webster, Jr. (“Webster”) filed objections on November 25, 2024. ECF No. 135. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the motions to dismiss, the responses, the report and recommendation, the objection to the report and recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland (ECF No. 134) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Webster’s objections are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 10 & 107) are GRANTED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court cautions Mr. Webster against making additional frivolous filings lest he be declared a vexatious litigant and prevented from filing any future civil lawsuit in the Western District of Texas without first obtaining permission from a judge of the Western District of Texas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to CLOSE the case.

SIGNED this 2nd day of December, 2024.

‘ Eons \ \Lac A ALAN D ALB a UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE