Williams v. McDonough et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING 40 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 2/4/2019. (rpc, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

MELVIN EARL WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APRIL
DAWN MCDONOUGH, KEITH D. MARTIN,
and DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-00811

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this
consolidated action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On January 10, 2019, the report of the Magistrate Judge
was entered (see Dkt. #40) containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that:
1. Defendant April Dawn McDonough’s (“McDonough”) Motion to Dismiss
Under Rule 12 (Dkt. #16) be DENIED as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim
and GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s gross negligence claim;
2. Defendant Keith D. Martin’s (“Martin”) Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12 (Dkt.
#20) be GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim and GRANTED as
to Plaintiff’s gross negligence claim;
3. Defendant City of Denton, Texas’ (the “City”) Motion to Dismiss Under Rule
12 (Dkt. #19) be DENIED; and
4. Defendant Denton County, Texas’ (the “County”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #6) be DENIED.
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections
thereto having been timely filed, the 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.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Defendant McDonough’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12 (Dkt. #16) is
DENIED as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim and GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s
gross negligence claim;

.

2. Defendant Martin’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12 (Dkt. #20) is GRANTED
in its entirety, and all claims against Defendant Martin shall be DISMISSED.
Plaintiff has been allowed to file an amended complaint, so the Clerk's Office
will not terminate Defendant Martin at this time.
3. The City’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12 (Dkt. #19) is DENIED; and
4. The County’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #6)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 4th day of February, 2019.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2