Watkins v. Klein ISD

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 22 Memorandum and Recommendations, DENYING 15 MOTION for Continuance of in Suit, DENYING 18 MOTION to Grant Relief, GRANTING 7 MOTION to Dismiss 6 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. . (Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION DOUGLAS T. WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. KLEIN ISD, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § July 06, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION H-16-3223 ORDER Pending before the court is a memorandum and recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Johnson (“M&R”). Dkt. 22. The M&R recommends granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7), denying plaintiff Douglas T. Watkins’s motion to grant relief (Dkt. 18), and denying Watkins’s motion for continuance (Dkt. 15). Id. The M&R advises that any party wishing to object to the M&R must do so by July 6, 2017. Id. On June 23, 2017, Watkins filed a letter asserting that he did not receive two pieces of correspondence from the defendants, but acknowledged that he received a copy of defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7) by certified mail return receipt requested. Dkt. 23; see Dkt. 12 (notice of service). To the extent that the letter constitutes objections to the M&R, Watkins does nothing more than repeat his requests for relief and for the court to “dismiss the Defendants claim,” which Judge Johnson construed as the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Id. at 1; see Dkt. 22 at 4 (plaintiff “demands damages based on defendants’ filing of the motion to dismiss”). For dispositive matters, the court “determine(s) de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Comm. Note (1983). For nondispositive matters, the court may set aside the magistrate judge’s order only to the extent that it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). After considering the M&R, the record, Watkins’s letter, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the objections should be OVERRULED. The court ADOPTS IN FULL the M&R. For the reasons stated in the M&R, defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED, Watkins’s motion to grant relief (Dkt. 18) is DENIED, and Watkins’s motion for continuance (Dkt. 15) is DENIED. Watkins’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is so ORDERED. Signed at Houston, Texas on July 6, 2017. ___________________________________ Gray H. Miller United States District Judge 2

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?