Ford v. Fitness International LLC

Filing 29

ORDER: The court determines that the 28 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. The court grants Defendant Fitness International, LLC's Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment (Doc. 24 ) and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a),* dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's section 1981, FDCPA, TCPA, TRISA, and DTPA claims. Instead of granting in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, as proposed by the magistrate judge, the court denies as moot the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20 ). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 9/13/2018) (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
RODNEY DEWAYNE FORD,
Plaintiff,
v.

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
doing business as LA FITNESS,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1460-L

ORDER
On August 15, 2018, United States Magistrate Rebecca Rutherford entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending
that the court grant in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20), filed January 18, 2018; grant
Defendant Fitness International, LLC’s Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment (Doc. 24), filed
April 26, 2018, and dismiss with prejudice all of Plaintiff’s claims for alleged civil rights violations,
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and alleged violations of the Federal Unfair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the Texas Retail
Installment Sales Act (“TRISA”), and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). No
response to Defendant’s motions or objections to the Report were filed by Plaintiff within the time
for doing so.
Having reviewed the motions, pleadings, record in this case, applicable legal standards, and
Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct,
and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court grants Defendant Fitness

Order – Page 1

International, LLC’s Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) and, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a),* dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s section 1981, FDCPA, TCPA,
TRISA, and DTPA claims. Instead of granting in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, as proposed
by the magistrate judge, the court denies as moot the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20). As no further
claims remain, the court will enter a judgment by separate document pursuant to Rule 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is so ordered this 13th day of September, 2018.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

*

As Plaintiff filed no response to the summary judgment motion, the court is permitted to accept Defendant’s
facts as undisputed. Eversley v. Mbank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988). Moreover, Plaintiff’s unsworn
pleadings do not constitute summary judgment evidence. Bookman v. Schubzda, 945 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (N.D. Tex.
1996) (citing Solo Serve Corp. v. Westowne Assocs., 929 F.2d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Order – Page 2