Moore v. Williams et al

Filing 62

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 56 Report and Recommendations. It is accordingly ORDERED Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. #49) is GRANTED. It is also ORDERED Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. #1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 is DISMISSED with prejudice against Defendant. All motions by either party not previously ruled upon are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/8/2018. (daj, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

JIMMY MOORE, # 1771243
Plaintiff
VS.
WILLIAM CHARLES, et. al.
Defendants

§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 4:14CV825

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Kimberly C. Priest Johnson, who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the
Defendant Juan Marrero’s (hereinafter, “Defendant”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. #49) be granted and
the claims against him be dismissed with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation, which
contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has
been presented for consideration, and an objection was filed by Plaintiff.
In his objection, Plaintiff states that Defendant did not timely respond to the Complaint.
See Dkt. #61 at 2. However, Defendant was served on March 3, 2017. Defendant filed an
appropriate answer, his motion to dismiss, on March 24, 2017. See Dkt. ##45, 49; FED R. CIV. P.
12(a)(1)(A)(i).
Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s decision-making was arbitrary and
unreasonable because there was a lack of evidence to support the disciplinary decision. See Dkt.
#61 at 3-4. Similarly, Plaintiff also argues that he did show that his disciplinary action was
overturned. See Dkt. #61 at 5. While Plaintiff does correctly cite to Judge O’Conner’s Order
overturning his disciplinary action (see Moore v. Stephens, 7:13-cv-046, Dkt. No. 26, 2014 WL
6485865 (N.D.Tex. November 14, 2014), Plaintiff fails to show that the resulting refiling of the

disciplinary action was overturned. Id. at Dkt. #34-1. Therefore, since Plaintiff fails to show the
new disciplinary decision was arbitrary, Plaintiff’s claims fail.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not part of the corporate entity, under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, because Defendant acted outside of his corporate duties. See Dkt.
#61 at 6. Movant also alleged that he provided sufficient allegations to sustain his claims.
Plaintiff’s allegations, however, fail to show Defendant acted outside the course of his duties. For
example, even assuming Defendant filed a false report, filing disciplinary reports are among his
duties. For the reasons above, after conducting a de novo review of the record, the court concludes
that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and adopts same as the
findings and conclusions of the Court.
It is accordingly ORDERED Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #49) is GRANTED.
.

It is also ORDERED Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. #1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 is DISMISSED with prejudice against Defendant. All motions by either party not
previously ruled upon are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 8th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE