Walker v. Trinity Oil and Gas Company

Filing 35

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: It is ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 28 are accepted as the findings of the Court. Plaintiff' ;s claims for alleged violations of federal law under 30 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1732, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(2), and 1986 12 are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for fail ure to state a claim. Further, Plaintiff's remaining claim for alleged violation of the Texas DTPA 12 is DISMISSED without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds. Further, Plaintiff's Motion for Jury Trial Setting 26 ; Motion for Leave to File Out of Time 29 ; Motion to Stay Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 30 ; and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint 31 are DISMISSED as moot. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 1/13/2017) (skg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

DERRICK ANTHONY WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRINITY OIL AND GAS CO.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-00098-O

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in
this case. See ECF No. 28. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s claims brought
under federal law be dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff’s claim brought under state law be
dismissed without prejudice. Id. The Magistrate Judge mandated that any objections filed by the
parties “identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis
for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where
the disputed determination is found.” Id. at 9. The deadline to file objections expired on December
27, 2016, and Plaintiff made new filings on December 28, 2016.1 The Court has reviewed
Plaintiff’s new filings and finds they contain no specific objections, the proposed complaint does
not remedy the defects, and overall they do not merit a change in the Magistrate Judge’s report
and recommendation. Because no objections were filed, the District Court has reviewed the

1

On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed: Motion for Leave to File Out of Time (ECF No. 29); Motion to Stay Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate (ECF No. 30); Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 31); and Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32).

1

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court
ACCEPTS the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge are accepted as the findings of the Court. Plaintiff’s claims for
alleged violations of federal law under 30 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1732, the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(2), and 1986 (ECF No. 12) are
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Further, Plaintiff’s remaining
claim for alleged violation of the Texas DTPA (ECF No. 12) is DISMISSED without prejudice
on jurisdictional grounds. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion for Jury Trial Setting (ECF No. 26); Motion
for Leave to File Out of Time (ECF No. 29); Motion to Stay Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate (ECF No. 30); and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 31)
are DISMISSED as moot.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2017.

_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2