Weinstein v. Madison

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Peter D. Weinstein, § No. 1:23–CV–01534-DAE § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § Jennifer S. Madison, § § Defendant. § § §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed by Magistrate Susan Hightower. (Dkt. # 31.) Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After reviewing the Recommendation and the information contained in the record, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation. BACKGROUND On August 30, 2024 Defendant Jennifer Madison who is proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Peter D. Weinstein’s claims for libel and defamation, arguing that Plaintiff had failed to turn over evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). (Dkt. # 23.) The Motion to Dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower on September 4, 2024, along with several other non-dispositive motions

by Defendant. On September 12, 2024, Judge Hightower ordered the parties, or counsel appearing on their behalf, to appear for a hearing by Zoom on October 7, 2024 to address all pending motions. (Dkt. # 26.) Plaintiff appeared, but

Defendant did not. Judge Hightower issued her Report and Recommendation on October 7, 2024, along with her Order on the pending non-dispositive motions. (Dkt. # 31.) None of the parties filed objections. DISCUSSION

Where, as here, none of the parties objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings, the Court reviews the Recommendation for clear error. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After careful consideration, the

Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. The Court finds that Judge Hightower’s analysis is reasonable and absent of clear error. Because Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss argued only that the Plaintiff had violated the Brady doctrine, the Court determines that Judge Hightower’s

conclusion and recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Brady evidentiary rule, which applies to prosecutors in criminal cases, is not a valid basis to dismiss this civil case. Brady 373 U.S. at 87. The Court therefore adopts Judge Hightower’s recommendation and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 23.) CONCLUSION For the reasons given, the Court ADOPTS U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 31) and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 23.)

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 25, 2024

Hon. David Alan Ezra Senior U.S. District Judge