Lewis v. Texas Instruments Inc Employee Health Benefits Plan et al

Filing 95

ORDER: Having reviewed the motions, briefs, pleadings, file, record in this case, and the 94 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and accepts th em as those of the court, except that the court will deny Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment in light of the court's determination that Defendants' motions to dismiss should be granted rather than denied as moot. According ly, the court grants the Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (Doc. 44 ); grants Defendant TI Employees Health Benefit Plan's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 45 ); denies as moot Plaintiff's Motio n for Summary Judgment (Doc. 78 ); denies Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82 ); denies Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading (Doc. 65 ); denies Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Motion to Leave File d on 11/13/2013 (Doc. 74 ); denies Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleading (Doc. 75 ); and dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/14/2014) (ctf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
IRIS LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.
EMPLOYMENT HEALTH BENEFITS
PLAN AND BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF TEXAS,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-4577-L

ORDER
Before the court is: the Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Defendant Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Texas (Doc. 44), filed September 4, 2013; Defendant TI Employees Health
Benefit Plan’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 45), filed September 4, 2013; Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File Amended Pleading (Doc. 65), filed November 7, 2013; Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Motion
to Leave Filed on November 13, 2013 (Doc. 74), filed December 27, 2013; Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Amended Pleading (Doc. 75), filed December 27, 2013; Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 78), filed January 6, 2014; Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 82), filed January 16, 2014; and the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 94), issued on June 23, 2014, by United
States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan.

Order –Page 1

In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the court grant Defendants’ motions to
dismiss; deny as moot Plaintiff’s summary judgment motions; deny Plaintiff’s motions to amend her
pleadings; and dismiss with prejudice this action. No objections were filed to the Report.
Having reviewed the motions, briefs, pleadings, file, record in this case, and the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge are correct and accepts them as those of the court, except that the court will deny
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment in light of the court’s determination that
Defendants’ motions to dismiss should be granted rather than denied as moot. Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion for Summary Judgment replaced and moots Plaintiff’s earlier filed Motion for Summary
Judgment and will therefore be denied as moot as recommended by the magistrate judge. Further,
as noted by the magistrate judge, amendment would be futile “because Plaintiff has pleaded herself
out of court.” Report 20. Thus, Plaintiff will not be allowed another opportunity to further amend
her pleadings.
Accordingly, the court grants the Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Defendant
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (Doc. 44); grants Defendant TI Employees Health Benefit Plan’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 45); denies as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 78);
denies Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82); denies Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Amended Pleading (Doc. 65); denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Motion to Leave
Filed on November 13, 2013 (Doc. 74); denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Pleading (Doc. 75); and dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Order –Page 2

It is so ordered this 14th day of July, 2014.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order –Page 3