Terry v. Detention Workers et al
ORDER ACCEPTING THE 17 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The Court DENIES the plaintiff's 16 motion to alter or amend the judgment. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 3/31/2021) (twd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DETENTION WORKERS, et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-16-X-BH
ORDER ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion Responding to the Judgment. [Doc.
No. 16]. The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation regarding the motion. [Doc. No. 17]. The plaintiff filed objections.
The Court therefore reviews the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation
de novo. Having done so, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
The Court previously dismissed the plaintiff’s suit with prejudice as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), or alternatively as time-barred. 1 The plaintiff filed
objections, which the Magistrate Judge correctly construed as a motion to alter or
1 Doc. No. 14. The Court found this suit frivolous because it is duplicative of a prior lawsuit
that was twice dismissed for want of prosecution. See Terry v. Supervisor et al., 2018 WL 3489629
(N.D. Tex. June 22, 2018), rec. adopted, 2018 WL 3475666 (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2018). Alternatively,
the Court found this suit was also time-barred because the incident at issue occurred in 2014 and all
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See Redburn v. City of
Victoria, 898 F.3d 486, 496 (5th Cir. 2018) (finding that Texas’s two-year statute of limitations for
personal-injury suits applies to federal section 1983 claims).
amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 2 In her motion, the
plaintiff asserts in conclusory fashion that she has stated a claim and that dismissal
of this lawsuit with prejudice was improper because the Court dismissed her prior
suit in 2018 without prejudice. 3 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
deny the plaintiff’s motion. 4
The Court finds the plaintiff does not identify any intervening change in
controlling law, new evidence, or manifest errors of law or fact that would lead the
Court to consider altering the prior judgment. 5 Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and DENIES the
plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Doc. No. 17 at 1.
See generally Doc. No. 18.
Doc. No. 17 at 4.
5 See Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (reciting the
elements needed to prevail on a motion under Rule 59(e)).
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?