Butler v. Woods et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Woods' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 14 ), Defendant Landrum's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 16 ), and Defendant Lane� 39;s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 23 ) are GRANTED based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Bench are dismissed for lack of subject ma tter jurisdiction pursuant to the TIA and the Court's sua sponte application of Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Strike (Dkt. # 12 ; Dkt. # 20 ; Dkt. # 25 ; Dkt. # 26 ; Dkt. # 27 ) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that any request for relief not addressed by the Report (Dkt. # 43 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Sean D. Jordan on 9/24/2024. (rpc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JACK BUTLER, Trustee for the
MARY BUTLER IRREVOCABLE
TRUST,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK K. WOODS, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00942SDJ-AGD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), this Motion having been referred to the
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 3, 2024, the Report of
the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #43), was entered containing proposed findings of fact
and recommendation that Defendant Bench’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #9), Defendant
Woods’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #14), Defendant Landrum’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
#16), and Defendant Lane’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #23) each be granted based on
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The
Magistrate Judge further recommended that Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike (Dkt. #12;
Dkt. #20; Dkt. #25; Dkt. #26; Dkt. #27) be denied. The Magistrate Judge further
recommended that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with prejudice.
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommended the dismissal of Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Woods, Landrum, and Lane for lack of subject-matter
1

jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (“TIA”), and
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Magistrate Judge also
recommended the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bench pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Report finds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the TIA, an argument
that was not raised by Defendant Bench. Regardless, the TIA applies equally to all
Defendants. Because it does, “it necessarily follows” that if the TIA divests the Court
of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against Woods, Landrum, and
Lane, the TIA also divests the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Bench. See Akula v. Cassidy, No. CV 23-1057, 2024 WL
1556534, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 10, 2024).
“A court may sua sponte dismiss on its own . . . motion . . . as long as the plaintiff
has notice and an opportunity to respond.” Thomas v. State, 294 F. Supp. 3d 576, 619
(N.D. Tex. 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:17-CV-0348-N-BH, 2018
WL 1254926 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (citing Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177
(5th Cir. 2006) (remaining citation omitted). “Plaintiff receives notice and an
opportunity to respond based on ‘[t]he fourteen-day time frame for filing objections to
a recommended dismissal....’” Id. (citing Fantroy v. First Fin. Bank. N.A., 2012 WL
6764551, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2012) (citing Ratcliff v. Coker, No. 9:08cv127, 2008
WL 4500321, at *3 n.1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2008))).

2

On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Recusal of Magistrate Judge,
which the Court construes as timely objections to the Report (Dkt. #44). Then, on
September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Response to Report and Recommendation, which
the court construes as timely supplemental objections (Dkt. #46). The Court has
conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. #44; Dkt. #46) and the
portions of the Report to which Plaintiff specifically objects. Having done so, the Court
is of the opinion that the findings of the Magistrate Judge concerning Woods,
Landrum, and Lane’s Motions to Dismiss are correct and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s Report with respect to these motions as the findings of the Court. With
respect to Defendant Bench, the Court declines to adopt the Report. Rather, the Court
sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bench for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to the TIA and Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
In his objections, Plaintiff merely recited the claims raised in his complaint.
Plaintiff did not address the application of the TIA. Because the Report provided
Plaintiff with notice that his claims are barred by the TIA, and because Plaintiff did
not object to the application of the TIA, the Court sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Bench for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to
the TIA and Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Woods’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
#14), Defendant Landrum’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #16), and Defendant Lane’s
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #23) are GRANTED based on Federal Rule of Civil

3

Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bench are dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to the TIA and the Court’s sua sponte application of Rule
.
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike (Dkt. #12; Dkt. #20;
Dkt. #25; Dkt. #26; Dkt. #27) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that any request for relief not addressed by the Report
(Dkt. #43) is DENIED AS MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of September, 2024.

____________________________________
SEAN D. JORDAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4