Thomas v. Beaumont Independent School District

Filing 24

ORDER overruling objections and adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. Defts' 9 and 17 Motions to Dismiss are granted. Pltf's claims are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/8/16. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
GEORGE W. THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-112

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin for
consideration of and recommended disposition on case-dispositive pretrial motions. On February
12, 2016, Judge Giblin issued his report and recommendation [Doc. No. 21] in which he
recommended that the Court grant the defendant’s pending motions to dismiss and dismiss plaintiff’s
claims in this case in their entirety for failure to state a claim and based on the prohibition against
claim-splitting.
The plaintiff filed objections to Judge Giblin’s report [Doc. No. 23]. Although his objections
are thirteen pages, only the first page reflects plaintiff’s actual arguments. The rest are re-attached
pages from documents already filed in this case. Plaintiff objects that he has been denied a trial by
a jury and contends that he has a right to be heard. He also appears to argue that the magistrate judge
erred in holding that this federal case arises out of the same facts as the plaintiff’s state case. Judge
Giblin cited the factual similarities in support of his recommendation that the case be dismissed on
the basis of claim-splitting. See Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 21], at p. 7. The plaintiff,
however, fails to explain how the two cases differ factually other than stating “different people were

involved.” He further objects on the basis there is more evidence to be presented, there is enough
evidence to raise “reasonable suspension” [sic], and defendant BISD “does not always act in good
faith.” See Objections, at p. 1. He also complains that Judge Giblin did not consider his disparate
impact claim.
After consideration, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s objections fail to explain Judge
Gibln’s alleged errors with the requisite specificity and support. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Nettles
v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc) (“Parties filing objections must
specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not
be considered by the district court.”) Judge Giblin’s report thoroughly explained the doctrine of
claim-splitting, which is designed to protect defendants from being harassed by repetitive actions
based on the same claim. See Ameritox, Ltd. v. Aegis Sciences Corp., No. 3:08–cv–1168, 2009 WL
305874, *4 (N.D.Tex. Feb. 9, 2009). Judge Giblin’s report sets forth the factual similarities between
plaintiff’s allegations in this case and those at issue in his state case. See Report, at pp. 7-8. The
plaintiff’s objections do not address the legal basis for Judge Giblin’s recommended disposition
based on the prohibition against claim-splitting and Thomas fails to explain how the two cases are
distinguishable for purposes of claim-splitting. Thomas’ objections on the issue are conclusive and
vague, and further lack factual and legal support. Upon review, the Court agrees with Judge Giblin
that the prohibition against claim-splitting in this case should apply based on Mr. Thomas’ parallel
claims in his pending state court suit. As explained by the magistrate judge, principals of comity and
judicial economy convince the Court that Mr. Thomas’ case must be dismissed on the basis of claimsplitting and his objections do not alter this result.
Therefore, pursuant to the plaintiff’s objections and in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
2

§ 636(b)(1), the court has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings, the record,
the plaintiff’s objections, and the applicable law in this proceeding. After review, the court finds
that Judge Giblin’s findings and recommendations should be accepted. The Court ORDERS that
the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 21] is ADOPTED and the plaintiff’s objections [Doc.
No. 23] are OVERRULED. The Court further ORDERS that the defendants’ motion to dismiss
[Doc. No. 9] and [Doc. No. 17] are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED in their
entirety, with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8 day of March, 2016.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

3