Nance v. Meeks et al

Filing 37

Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations: The court determines that the 33 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20 ), and dismisses with prejudice this action and all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/30/2018) (ndt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JESSICA NANCE, Plaintiff, v. RANDY MEEKS; JERRY STEVENS; BRUCE MESSICK; TAMMY SHERMAN; BELINDA SPOONMORE; AMY LAM; CLIFTON KING; TIMOTHY WHITEHEAD; STEVEN NORTH; MARIA RODRIGUEZ; NATHANIEL AKERS; BRANDON CHAMBERS; and ANNA HIGGINS, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1882-L ORDER This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan, who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on August 1, 2018, recommending that the court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity and dismiss this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, even though she was granted an extension to September 14, 2018, to do so. After reviewing the pleadings, motions, briefs, evidence, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20), and dismisses with prejudice this action and all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants. Order – Page 1 It is so ordered this 30th day of October, 2018. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Page 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?