Wood v. Bexar County Texas

Opinion

FILED December 03, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ee SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM DEPUTY AMANDA WOOD, § Plaintiff, : v. : CIVIL NO. SA-21-CV-00895-OLG BEXAR COUNTY TEXAS and : DEPUTY J. GEREB, § Defendants. : ORDER The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed September 20, 2024, concerning Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 73 & 73). (See R&R, Dkt. No. 102.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days “after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” Feb. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff, through counsel, was electronically served with a copy of the R&R on September 25, 2024. As such, her deadline to file objections was October 9, 2024. Plaintiff's objections to the R&R, filed October 4, 2024, were therefore timely. (See Dkt. No. 104.) Defendants have responded to the objections (see Dkt. No. 120), and Plaintiff has replied (see Dkt. No. 122). When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. □□□□ P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982), overruled on other

grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. The Court, having reviewed the entirety of the R&R de novo, finds that it is in all things correct and that Plaintiff’s objections should be and hereby are overruled. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 72 & 73) are GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims in this case are DISMISSED. All pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 105 & 118) are DISMISSED AS MOOT. This case is CLOSED. It isso ORDERED.

SIGNED tis J day of December, 2024.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge