Grant II v. U S Department of Transportation

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 8 Report and Recommendations. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 10/31/2018. (saenz, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
WILLIAM LEE GRANT II,
Plaintiff,
v.
U S DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-CV-00290-RWS

Defendant.
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. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 21, 2018.
Docket No. 1. On June 25, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Amend (Docket No.
5), ordering that Plaintiff file an amended complaint addressing the following deficiencies: (1)
failure to make “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction;” and (2)
failure to make “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id.
citing FED.R.CIV.P. 8. On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff received the Magistrate Judge’s Order to
Amend. Docket No. 7. On July 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Order, but did not otherwise timely amend his complaint as ordered by the Magistrate Judge.
Docket No. 6. On July 18, 2018, after determining that Plaintiff’s attachments were “a mere
markup of the [Magistrate Judge]’s previously issued Order” and that they did not cure the
aforementioned deficiencies in the original complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Docket No. 8. On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff
received the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed
an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, but did not otherwise timely
amend his complaint as ordered by the Magistrate Judge. Docket No. 9. The Court reviews de
novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which objections have been raised. 28
U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1).
Plaintiff does not raise any actual objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. See Docket No. 9. Rather, the objection is a markup of the first page of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See id. As the Magistrate Judge correctly
found, Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted. See Docket No. 8 at 2
(citing Docket No. 5). Plaintiff’s markups to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
do not state claims against the U.S. Department of Transportation, but instead appear to state
.
grievances against the Illinois Department of Transportation. Docket No. 9. These allegations do
not contain sufficient facts to state a federal claim and do not contain any allegations against the
named Defendant in this matter—the U.S. Department of Transportation. For these reasons, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the complaint should be dismissed.
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 the complaint is
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SIGNED this 31st day of October, 2018.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2