WILLIAMS v. State Farm Insurance et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 8 is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 12/22/17. (mll, )

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

v.

STATE FARM INSURANCE et al.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17cv369

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of the complaint has been presented for
consideration. The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 14), filed on November 3, 2017,
recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8) be granted and that the
complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court mailed the Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff via regular and certified
mail. On November 14, 2017, the Court extended Plaintiff’s time to file written objections to the
Report and Recommendation to December 15, 2017. Docket No. 16. The copies of the Report
and Recommendation and the Order extending the deadline to file written objections that were
mailed to Plaintiff via certified mail were each returned to the Court with the notation, “return to
sender, unclaimed, unable to forward.” Docket Nos. 19, 20. On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a single-page letter stating that he “submitted a perfect brief for relief” and asking the Court
to “reevaluate.” Docket No. 18. The Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as his written objection to
the Report and Recommendation.

Here, the amended complaint filed by Plaintiff does not meet the pleading requirement to
state a claim for fraud. Plaintiff asserts only conclusory allegations that Defendants fraudulently
refuse to pay roof damage claims.

See Docket No. 1.

Plaintiff similarly only provides

conclusory allegations concerning his allegation of “racketeering.” Id. Rather than respond to
the motion to dismiss or the Report and Recommendation with facts to support his claims,
Plaintiff responded with additional conclusory allegations that Defendants sell “property
insurance with no intent to pay roof claims”1 and that he “submitted a perfect brief.”2 Plaintiff
has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted and his written objection does not show
error in the Report and Recommendation. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

. Having made a de novo review of the written objections filed by Plaintiff in response to
the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections are without merit. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation filed on November 3, 2017 is
ADOPTED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8) is GRANTED and the complaint is
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of December, 2017.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1
2

See Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 9, at *1 (submitted in response to the motion to dismiss).
See Plaintiff’s letter, Docket No.18, construed as Plaintiff’s written objection to Report and Recommendation.

Page 2 of 2