Booth v. Galveston County et al

Filing 165

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Dkt 151 Memorandum and Recommendations is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Dkt 45 Amended MOTION to Dismiss All Claims Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)is DENIED; Dkt 46 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, claims against the Magistrates in their official capacities are DISMISSED. Dkt 47 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to St ate a Claim is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the claims asserted against the District Court Judges in their individual capacities are DISMISSED. Dkt 48 MOTION to Dismiss is DENIED; Dkt 94 Second MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED; Dkt 127 First MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)is DENIED. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ltrevino, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
January 10, 2019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
AARON BOOTH
Plaintiff.
VS.
GALVESTON COUNTY, ET AL.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18–CV–00104

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S MEMORANDUM AND
RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the Memorandum and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison. Dkt. 151. The case was referred to Judge
Edison pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See Dkt. 102. Pending before Judge Edison
was Galveston County’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss All Claims Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) (Dkt. 45); Magistrates’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedures 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support (Dkt. 46); District Court Judges’
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a
Claim (Dkt. 47); Defendant Hon. Jack Roady’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 48); District
Court Judge Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction (Dkt. 94); and Galveston County’s First Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) (Dkt. 127).

On December 20, 2018, Galveston County filed its Objections (Dkt. 154). The
next day, on December 21, 2018, all the other defendants filed their Objections (Dkts.
155–157). Booth filed responses to the defendants’ Objections (Dkts. 159–160). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court is required to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this
de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(3).
Based on the pleadings, the record and the applicable law, the Court ACCEPTS
Judge Edison’s Memorandum and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the opinion of
the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that:
(1)

Judge Edison’s Memorandum and Recommendation (Dkt. 151) is
APPROVED AND ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court;

(2)

Galveston County’s First Amended Motion to Dismiss All Claims Pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 45) is DENIED;

(3)

Magistrates’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedures 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and Brief in Support (Dkt. 46) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the claims
asserted against the Magistrates in their official capacities are
DISMISSED. The motion is denied in all other respects;

(4)

District Court Judges’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter
Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 47) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the claims asserted against the
District Court Judges in their individual capacities are DISMISSED. The
motion is denied in all other respects;

(5)

Defendant Hon. Jack Roady’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 48) is DENIED;
2

(6)

District Court Judge Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Dkt. 94) is DENIED; and

(7)

Galveston County’s First Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
(Dkt. 127) is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 10th day of January, 2019.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

3