Jackson v. Gordy et al

Filing 112

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 12 61 108 Memorandum and Recommendations. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection 17 111 ; RETAINS Plaintiff's failure to protect claims against Martinez, De Los Santos, and Santellano; RETAINS Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims against Wagner, White, Flores, and Schales; DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the remaining claims against the remaining defendants; DENIES Wagner, White, and Floress motion to dismiss 26 ; GRANTS Santos, Martinez, and Santellano's motion for summary judgment 71 ; GRANTS Wagner, White, Flores, and Schales's motion for summary judgment 86 ; DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint 98 ; and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(scavazos, 1) Modified on 3/1/2018 (scavazos, 1).

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
AUNDRA B JACKSON,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
VS.
BRYAN GORDY, et al,
Defendants.

March 01, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-00338

ORDER
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s October 13, 2016, amended complaint,
Dkt. No. 12; the October 28, 2016, Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of
the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred, Dkt. No. 13; Plaintiff’s
November 7, 2016, objection to the M&R, Dkt. No. 17; Defendants Pamela Wagner
(“Wagner”), Janet White (“White”), and April Flores’s (“Flores”) January 23, 2017,
motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 26; the May 5, 2017, M&R, Dkt. No. 61; Defendants
Jeremy De Los Santos (“Santos”), Captain Martinez (“Martinez”), and Nicholas
Santellano’s (“Santellano”) June 20, 2017, motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No.
71; Wagner, White, Flores, and Robert Schales’s (“Schales”) August 7, 2017, motion
for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 86; Plaintiff’s September 8, 2017, motion for leave
to amend complaint, Dkt. No. 98; the January 8, 2018, M&R, Dkt. No. 108; and the
February 14, 2018, objection to the M&R, Dkt. No. 111. The Court considers each
M&R and any associated motion or objection.
I.

October 28, 2016, M&R

The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objection is
frivolous, conclusory, general, or contains no arguments that the October 28, 2016,
M&R has not already considered. See Dkt. Nos. 13, 17; Battle v. United States
Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987) (determining that a district court need
not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections). After independently

1/3

reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, the Court adopts the
proposed M&R in its entirety. Dkt. No. 12. Thus, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff’s objection. Dkt. No. 17.
II.

May 5, 2017, M&R

Petitioner did not object to the May 5, 2017, M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(setting a 14-day deadline to file objections; FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2) (same); see also
Dkt. No. 61 at 11 (advising parties of the 14-day deadline). After independently
reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, the Court adopts the
proposed M&R in its entirety. Dkt. No. 61.
III.

January 8, 2018, M&R

The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objection is
frivolous, conclusory, general, or contains no arguments that the January 8, 2018,
M&R has not already considered. See Dkt. Nos. 108, 111; Battle, 834 F.2d at 419.
After independently reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, the
Court adopts the proposed M&R in its entirety. Dkt. No. 108. Thus, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection. Dkt. No. 111.
The Court hereby:


RETAINS Plaintiff’s failure to protect claims against Martinez, De Los
Santos, and Santellano;



RETAINS Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims against Wagner, White,
Flores, and Schales;



DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the remaining claims against the
remaining defendants;



DENIES Wagner, White, and Flores’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 26;



GRANTS Santos, Martinez, and Santellano’s motion for summary judgment,
Dkt. No. 71;



GRANTS Wagner, White, Flores, and Schales’s motion for summary
judgment, Dkt. No. 86;


2/3

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint, Dkt. No. 98; and



DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action.

The Court will order entry of final judgment separately.
SIGNED this 1st day of March, 2018.
___________________________________
Hilda Tagle
Senior United States District Judge

3/3