Wallace v. Pinnacle Family of Companies

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 14 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (Ordered by Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 2/28/2013) (jrr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CECIL H. WALLACE, JR.,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
vs.
§
§
PINNACLE FAMILY OF COMPANIES,§
Defendant.
§

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-3931-D
(Consolidated with No. 3:12-CV-3932-D)

ORDER
After conducting a de novo review, the court finds that the pertinent findings, conclusions,
and recommendation of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and
conclusions of the court.
Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judges’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation, but
he does not show that one of the grounds on which the magistrate judge relied—that plaintiff’s claim
under the Fair Housing Act is barred by the statute of limitations—is incorrect. In response to the
magistrate judges’s questionnaire, plaintiff stated that the incident on which his lawsuit is based took
place on October 28, 2009. See P. Answer Quest. No. 1. Plaintiff filed these consolidated lawsuits
on September 28, 2012. More than two years elapsed between the date his claim accrued and the
date he filed his lawsuits. Plaintiff seems to rely in his objections on the fact that he made
complaints with other federal and local agencies in 2010 and then filed his lawsuit in 2012: in other
words, within two years of filing his agency complaints in 2010. See P. Objs. 4. But the two-year
limitations period commenced on October 28, 2009—the date he alleges his apartment was broken
into—so his lawsuits are barred by the statute of limitations because he did not file them within two

years of that date.
SO ORDERED.
February 28, 2013.

_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
CHIEF JUDGE

-2-