WILLIAMS v. Environmental Protection Agency et al

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 73 Report and Recommendations. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss that were amended by Doc. No. 46 (Doc. Nos. 29 & 30 ) are DENIED AS MOOT. The remaining eight Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. [15 ], 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 26 , 46 , & 54 ) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Roosth Production Co., Officer Bain, Ed Broussard, Officer Bulman, City of Tyler, Carter Delleny, Officer Erbaugh, Martin Heines, Officer Matth ews, Clayton Nicocardi, Deborah Pullum, Officer Reed, Gary Swindle, Victoria Alford, Arnold and Itkin Law Firm, Holly Creek Village Home Owners Association, Brenda McQuisition, Alice Robinson, Rudy Wright, Yvonne Wright, Wright Way Management Co., Paul Boyd, State Farm Company, Lisa Whitfield, Martin Marietta, KKR LLP, Rosa Durso, David Sorkin, and Perry Smith are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 03/21/16. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
MICHAEL E. WILLIAMS
Plaintiff,

V.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY ET AL
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-CV-862

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation concluding that two of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss should be denied as
moot (Doc. Nos. 29 & 30) and eight of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss should be granted (Doc.
Nos. 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 46, & 54).
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for
consideration (Doc. No. 73). In his Report, the Magistrate Judge explained that a party who
wishes to file written objections to the Report may do so within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy of the Report. On February 29, 2016, the Court received notification that
Plaintiff refused service of the Report by the United States Postal Service (Doc. No. 78). Plaintiff
may not extend the objection period by refusing service of the Report. Therefore, the Court will
treat the February 29, 2016 notification of refusal as the beginning of the fourteen (14) day
objection period. As such, the objection period expired on March 17, 2016 (with three days
1

added pursuant to L.R.-CV-6(a)) and the parties have made no objections to the Report and
Recommendation as of that date. The Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
It is accordingly ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss that were amended by
Doc. No. 46 (Doc. Nos. 29 & 30) are DENIED AS MOOT. The remaining eight Motions to
Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 46, & 54) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Roosth Production Co., Officer Bain, Ed Broussard, Officer Bulman, City of
.
Tyler, Carter Delleny, Officer Erbaugh, Martin Heines, Officer Matthews, Clayton Nicocardi,
Deborah Pullum, Officer Reed, Gary Swindle, Victoria Alford, Arnold and Itkin Law Firm, Holly
Creek Village Home Owners Association, Brenda McQuisition, Alice Robinson, Rudy Wright,
Yvonne Wright, Wright Way Management Co., Paul Boyd, State Farm Company, Lisa Whitfield,
Martin Marietta, KKR LLP, Rosa Durso, David Sorkin, and Perry Smith are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

SIGNED this 21st day of March, 2016.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2