Williams v. The City of Nacogdoches, Texas

E.D. Texas

Williams v. The City of Nacogdoches, Texas

DecidedJanuary 20, 2023

Docket9:21-cv-00071

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. The City of Nacogdoches, Texas (Williams v. The City of Nacogdoches, Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. The City of Nacogdoches, Texas, (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

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

SHANNON WILLIAMS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:21-CV-00071-MJT THE CITY OF NACOGDOCHES, § JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE TEXAS, ITS FORMER POLICE § OFFICER JOSH ANDERSON, and THE § OVERLOOK AT NACOGDOCHES, § APARTMENT COMPLEX, § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On November 18, 2022, the Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn for pretrial management. [Dkt. 102]. Pending is Defendant the City of Nacogdoches, Texas’s (“the City”) Fourth Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6). [Dkt. 100]. On December 21, 2022, Judge Hawthorn issued his Report and Recommendation recommending granting the City’s pending Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. 110]. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff Shannon Williams filed her Objection to Report and Recommendation Granting Defendant the City of Nacogdoches’s Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. 115]. A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc). The court has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and has carefully considered Plaintiff's objections. The court finds that the magistrate judge’s conclusions are correct, and that Plaintiff's objections are without merit. To be clear, this Order only dismisses the City of Nacogdoches from the present action. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Shannon Wililams’s Objection to Report and Recommendation Granting Defendant the City of Nacogdoches’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 115] is OVERRULED and Judge Hawthorn’s Report and Recommendation Granting the City of Nacogdoches’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 110] is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff Shannon Williams’s claims against the City of Nacogdoches are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SIGNED this 20th day of January, 2023.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

SHANNON WILLIAMS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:21-CV-00071-MJT THE CITY OF NACOGDOCHES, § JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE TEXAS, ITS FORMER POLICE § OFFICER JOSH ANDERSON, and THE § OVERLOOK AT NACOGDOCHES, § APARTMENT COMPLEX, § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On November 18, 2022, the Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn for pretrial management. [Dkt. 102]. Pending is Defendant the City of Nacogdoches, Texas’s (“the City”) Fourth Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6). [Dkt. 100]. On December 21, 2022, Judge Hawthorn issued his Report and Recommendation recommending granting the City’s pending Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. 110]. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff Shannon Williams filed her Objection to Report and Recommendation Granting Defendant the City of Nacogdoches’s Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. 115]. A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc). The court has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and has carefully considered Plaintiff's objections. The court finds that the magistrate judge’s conclusions are correct, and that Plaintiff's objections are without merit. To be clear, this Order only dismisses the City of Nacogdoches from the present action. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Shannon Wililams’s Objection to Report and Recommendation Granting Defendant the City of Nacogdoches’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 115] is OVERRULED and Judge Hawthorn’s Report and Recommendation Granting the City of Nacogdoches’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 110] is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff Shannon Williams’s claims against the City of Nacogdoches are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SIGNED this 20th day of January, 2023.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. The City of Nacogdoches, Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-the-city-of-nacogdoches-texas-txed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack