Williamson v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00185
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION RICHARD WILLIAMSON § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-185 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Richard Williamson, a prisoner previously confined at Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States of America. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent that it requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s negligence claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court concludes the objections are without merit. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), did not address Plaintiff’s intentional tort claims. In the objections, Defendant contends for the first time that the intentional tort claims should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Arguments made for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation are not properly before the Court. United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992). ORDER Accordingly, Defendant’s objections [Dkt. 20] are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge [Dkt. 18] is ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 14] is GRANTED to the extent that it requests dismissal of Plaintiff's negligence claims.

SIGNED this 2nd day of September, 2025.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge