Carter v. State of Texas et al

Filing 10

ORDER: The court determines that the magistrate judge's 9 finding and conclusions in the Report are correct and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court construes Plaintiff's 8 Motion as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b); denies Plaintiff's Motion; and, only for statistical purposes, directs the clerk of court to reopen this action, enter this order, and then close it. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 5/7/2024) (agc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ALVIN STEPHON DEMIRO CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS and PHILLIP
CLARK,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-2578-L-BN

ORDER
The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
David Horan (“Report”) (Doc. 9) was entered on January 25, 2024, recommending that the court
construe Plaintiff Alvin Stephon Demiro Carter’s (“Plaintiff”) Notice of Demand for Reopening
(“Motion”) (Doc. 8) as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because it was filed
more than 28 days after the court entered final judgment; deny Plaintiff’s Motion; and “solely for
statistical purposes, reopen and then close this [action].” Report 1. Plaintiff did not file objections
to the Report, and the time to do so has expired.
As stated in the Report, on December 22, 2023, the court entered an order (Doc. 6): (1)
overruling Plaintiff’s objections; (2) accepting the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge; (3) dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant State of Texas for lack of jurisdiction; and (4) dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Phillip Clark, Assistant Dallas County District Attorney, as barred by
absolute prosecutorial immunity. Id. at 2. That same day the court entered a final judgment (Doc.
7) and directed the clerk of court to close the action. On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Motion
challenging the court’s dismissal of his claims against Defendant Phillip Clark; however, his sole

Order – Page 1

argument misconstrues the court’s reasoning for dismissing those claims. Mot. 1. Specifically,
Plaintiff’s only argument is that Defendant Phillip Clark is not entitled to sovereign immunity. Id.
As stated, however, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Phillip Clark for
prosecutorial immunity not sovereign immunity. Therefore, the Report concludes that Plaintiff has
failed to state a basis to grant relief under Rule 60(b). Report 4.
Having considered the Motion, Report, file, record, and relevant law, the court determines
that the magistrate judge’s finding and conclusions in the Report are correct and accepts them as
those of the court. Accordingly, the court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a motion pursuant to
Rule 60(b); denies Plaintiff’s Motion; and, only for statistical purposes, directs the clerk of court
to reopen this action, enter this order, and then close it.
It is so ordered this 7th day of May, 2024.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2