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)

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