Jack-Wilson: Butler v. adams et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 51 Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Landrum's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #20) is GRANTED; Defendant State Bar's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #21) is GRANTED; the Municipal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motions to Strike (Dkt. #24; Dkt. #25) are DENIED; and Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that any request for relief not addressed by the Report (Dkt. #51) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Sean D. Jordan on 9/24/2024. (dlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JACK-WILSON: BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LANA ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-01070SDJ-AGD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING 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 9, 2024, the Report of
the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #51), was entered containing proposed findings of fact
and recommendation that Defendant Landrum’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #20) be
granted; Defendant State Bar’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #21) be granted; the
Municipal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) be granted; Plaintiff’s Motions
to Strike (Dkt. #24; Dkt. #25) be denied; and Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with
prejudice.
On September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report (Dkt.
#55). The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s objections 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 are correct and adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report as the findings of the Court.
1

.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Landrum’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.
#20) is GRANTED; Defendant State Bar’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #21) is
GRANTED; the Municipal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) is GRANTED;
Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike (Dkt. #24; Dkt. #25) are DENIED; and Plaintiff’s case is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that any request for relief not addressed by the Report
(Dkt. #51) is DENIED AS MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of September, 2024.

____________________________________
SEAN D. JORDAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2