Soniat v. Jackson, III

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 3/31/2015. (pad, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
SHELLEY SONIAT
Plaintiff,
vs.
EDWARD JACKSON, III, et al.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:14cv77
(consolidated with 4:14cv122 and 4:14cv131)

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
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 December 9, 2014, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that the federal claims in Plaintiff’s consolidated action
(4:14cv77, consolidated with 4:14cv122 and 4:14cv131) be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim, that any remaining state law claims be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and that this
matter be closed on the court’s docket.
Although pro se Plaintiff did not timely file any objections to the report in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C),1 the court notes that Plaintiff has filed several motions for reconsideration
(see Dkts. 45 & 47) and other pleadings attempting to set forth the grounds for jurisdiction here (see

1

The Magistrate Judge twice advised her of her right to do so. See Dkts. 33 and 36.

1

Dkts. 39, 41, 43 & 46). The court has made a de novo review of the materials filed by Plaintiff and
is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and any
objections by Plaintiff are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. As to
Plaintiff’s subsequent attempts to amend her complaint (see Dkts. 38, 37 & 40), in his report and
recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found that no amendment to the written pleadings would
sufficiently state any claims over which the court has jurisdiction (see Dkt. 33 at 3). The court
agrees. The court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings
and conclusions of this court. Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration (Dkts. 45 & 47) are DENIED.
Therefore, the federal claims in Plaintiff’s consolidated action (4:14cv77, consolidated with
4:14cv122 and 4:14cv131) are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, any remaining
state law claims are dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and all three cases shall be closed on the court’s
docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
.

SIGNED this the 31st day of March, 2015.

_______________________________
RICHARD A. SCHELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2