Ponder v. City of Denton Texas et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 14 Motion to Dismiss, filed by City of Denton Texas, Dan Steadham, Fred G Greene, Mathew Harmouth, Jess Turner, Terri Gibbs, David Earl Ponder. Therefor e, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules 4(m) and 12(b), Alternative Motions under Rules 12(e) and 7 for More Definite Statement Pursuant to Heightened Pleadings Requirement and Alternative Motion to Abate Discovery (Dkt. 14) are DENIED as to dismissal under Rule 4(m) and DENIED as MOOT as to all other requests pending the court's consideration of the summary judgment evidence as to statute of limitations. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 9/29/2014. (kls, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
DAVID EARL PONDER

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
VS.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 4:13cv17

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this
matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. On July 16, 2014, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules
4(m) and 12(b), Alternative Motions under Rules 12(e) and 7 for More Definite Statement Pursuant
to Heightened Pleadings Requirement and Alternative Motion to Abate Discovery (Dkt. 14) be
DENIED as to dismissal under Rule 4(m) and DENIED as MOOT as to all other requests pending
the court’s consideration of the summary judgment evidence as to statute of limitations.
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto
having been timely filed, this court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and conclusions
of the court.

1

Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules 4(m) and 12(b),
Alternative Motions under Rules 12(e) and 7 for More Definite Statement Pursuant to Heightened
Pleadings Requirement and Alternative Motion to Abate Discovery (Dkt. 14) are DENIED as to
dismissal under Rule 4(m) and DENIED as MOOT as to all other requests pending the court’s
consideration of the summary judgment evidence as to statute of limitations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
.

SIGNED this the 29th day of September, 2014.

_______________________________
RICHARD A. SCHELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2