Osborne v. Thomas

Filing 60

ORDER: After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Defendant C ity of Dallas' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Alleged Against it, and Brief in Support (Doc. No. 33 ), and Defendant Porsha R. Thomas' Motion for Summary Judgment on Qualified Immunity and Judicial Immunity (Doc. No. 35 ) are hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. All other pending motions are hereby DENIED as moot. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/11/2015) (bdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JAMAR OSBORNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS and
PORSHA R. THOMAS
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:14-CV-3432-K

ORDER
After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and
they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
Defendant City of Dallas’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims
Alleged Against it, and Brief in Support (Doc. No. 33), and Defendant Porsha R.
Thomas’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Qualified Immunity and Judicial Immunity
(Doc. No. 35) are hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED with
prejudice.
All other pending motions are hereby DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Signed December 11th, 2015.

ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE