Nieman v. The Concrete Cowboy Bar et al

Filing 204

Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations 188 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 137 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Amanda Garcia, Katherine M. Mapula, Catherine Lewis Neal, Kristie Louann Brown, Luis Roman Taveras, Jason Gregory Smith, Nicholas S. Clarke, Jay Kun Lee, Daniel Lee Marion, and Nancy Schierding. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 3/28/2016) (ndt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JASON NIEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
E. STREET INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.,
d/b/a CONCRETE COWBOY, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§ No. 3:14-CV-3897-M (BF)
§
§
§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney as to Amanda Garcia, Katherine M. Mapula,
Catherine Lewis Neal, Kristie Louann Brown, Luis Roman Taveras, Jason Gregory Smith, Nicholas
S. Clarke, Jay Kun Lee, Daniel Lee Marion, and Nancy Schierding [ECF No. 188]. Plaintiff filed
objections [ECF No. 190]. The Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation to which objections were made. The objections are
overruled.
Plaintiff again requests in his objections leave to file a second amended complaint. See Obj.
[ECF No. 190 at 1-2]. This Court has previously denied Plaintiff’s requests for leave to file a second
amended complaint on the grounds that granting such leave would be futile and cause needless delay.
See Mem. Op. & Order [ECF No. 165 at 7-8] (“Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has pleaded
his best case and that granting leave to file a second amended complaint would be futile and cause
needless delay, Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motions are denied.”); Mem. Op. & Order [ECF No. 186 at 4]
(“Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has pleaded his best case and that granting leave to file a
second amended complaint would be futile and cause needless delay, Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion
is DENIED.”); Wortham v. Chris Hansen Lab, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-1696-L, 2014 WL 2694194, at

*2 (N.D. Tex. June 12, 2014) (“[W]hile generally a pro se litigant should be offered an opportunity
to amend his complaint before it is dismissed, granting leave to amend is not required if the plaintiff
has already pleaded his best case. . . . Here, Plaintiff’s claims are fatally infirm. Thus, the Court
concludes that granting leave to amend would be futile and cause needless delay.”) (quoting
Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009)) (internal quotations and alterations
omitted). Plaintiff’s request for leave is again denied on the same grounds.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss
[ECF No. 137] filed by Amanda Garcia, Katherine M. Mapula, Catherine Lewis Neal, Kristie
Louann Brown, Luis Roman Taveras, Jason Gregory Smith, Nicholas S. Clarke, Jay Kun Lee, Daniel
Lee Marion, and Nancy Schierding are GRANTED.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2016.

_________________________________
BARBARA M. G. LYNN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

2