White v. The State of Texas

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-01073
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

JACOB WHITE, § § Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-01073- v. § ALM-AGD § THE STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report (Dkt. #17) recommending that Defendant The State of Texas's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #9) and Defendant The Attorney General of Texas's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #10) be granted. The court further recommended that Plaintiff Jacob White's Motion for Judicial Notice and Declaratory Relief (Dkt. #13) be denied as moot. The court finally recommended that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice. On August 22, 2025, Plaintiff Jacob White filed an objection (Dkt.#18). Accordingly, having received the Report of the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. #18), and having conducted a de novo review, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.1 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant The State of Texas's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.

#9) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant The Attorney General of Texas's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #10) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Jacob White's Motion for Judicial Notice and Declaratory Relief (Dkt. #13) is DENIED AS MOOT. It is finally ORDERED that Plaintiff Jacob White’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff moved to amend his Complaint (Dkt. #19). Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #20), and Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #21), the Court finds that the requested amendment would be futile. Gregory v. McKennon, 430 F. App’x 306, 308 (5th Cir. 2011).