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)

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