Watson et al v. Hortman et al

Filing 159

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 138 Report and Recommendations. All claims by Plaintiffs in this matter are DENIED and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 3/27/12. (ehs, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION EMMA WATSON, individually and as next friend of D.J. and W.B., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. GREGORY HORTMAN, M.D., ET AL., Defendants. § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-81-JRG-RSP § § § ORDER On March 12, 2009, Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham issued a Report and Recommendation, urging this Court to grant-in-part and deny-in-part Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. No. 66.) On March 31, 2009, the Court overruled the parties’ objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 69), and on February 15, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 158.) On September 13, 2010, Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham issued a Report and Recommendation, urging this Court to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 138.) On September 27, 2010, Plaintiffs filed objections to the same (Dkt. No. 142), to which Defendants’ response followed on October 29, 2010 (Dkt. No. 148.) Upon considering the September 13 Report and Recommendation and the objections thereto, the Court hereby OVERRULES such objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in accordance with the reasons set forth in the same. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that all claims by Plaintiffs in this matter are DENIED and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.    SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of March, 2012. ____________________________________ RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?