Manning v. Franklin et al

Filing 54

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART, SUPPLEMENTING IN PART 52 Memorandum and Recommendation re 18 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint,, 13 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 46 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint,, 42 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 50 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 33 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 43 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 21 MOTION to Dismiss, 24 MOTION to Dismiss, 41 MOTION to Dismiss , 27 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DANITA MANNING, Plaintiff, v. ALICIA L. FRANKLIN, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION H-14-2916 ORDER Pending before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) recommending that the court grant defendants’ multiple motions to dismiss (Dkts. 13, 18, 21, 24, 27, 33, 41, 42, 43, 46 and 50). Dkt. 52. Defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (“CMS”) filed objections to the M&R. Dkt. 53. After considering the M&R and CMS’s objections, the court is of the opinion that CMS’s objections should be overruled in part and sustained in part. CMS objects to one sentence in the M&R on technical grounds, rather than substantive ones. The M&R states that “Defendants Cowan, Judge Chapman, Reaves, West, and Cumberland County Schools challenge Plaintiff’s subject-matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and abstention. The remaining defendants did not raise the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in their motions to dismiss.” Dkt. 52 at 11. CMS did in fact present an argument based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in its motion to dismiss. Dkt. 27 at 6. Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS that objection and supplements the M&R to include a clarification that CMS also challenges subject-matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. CMS also objects to the Magistrate’s decision not to consider the alternative grounds CMS offers for dismissal. Dkt. 53 at 2. This objection is OVERRULED. After determining that there was no federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims against CMS, the Magistrate appropriately declined to consider additional arguments. Accordingly, the M&R (Dkt. 52) is ADOPTED IN FULL and SUPPLEMENTED as noted above, and defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkts. 13, 18, 21, 24, 27, 33, 41, 42, 43, 46, 50) are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims in this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed at Houston, Texas on July 2, 2015 ___________________________________ Gray H. Miller United States District Judge

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?