Doe, et al v. LORENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 15 Motion to Dismiss filed by LORENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 29 Report and Recommendations, 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by APRIL JEWELL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that Defendant April Jewells objections are OVERRULED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant Lorena Independent School Districts Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 15, and Defendant April Jewells Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16, are DENIED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (zv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
MARY DOE, AS NEXT FRIEND OF
JANE DOE, A MINOR CHILD; AND
JOHN DOE, AS NEXT FRIEND OF
JANE DOE, A MINOR CHILD;
Plaintiffs,
v.
LORENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT, APRIL JEWELL,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL NO. W-23-CV-00566-ADA

Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Jeffrey C. Manske. ECF No. 29. The report recommends Defendant Lorena Independent School
District’s Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 15, be DENIED, and
Defendant April Jewell’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, ECF No. 16, be DENIED. The report and recommendation was filed on May 20, 2024.
A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.”
Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright,
677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United
States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). However, when no objections are timely filed,
a district court reviews the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s Note (“When no timely objection is filed, the [district] court

need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”).
Defendant April Jewell filed objections on June 3, 2024. ECF No. 31. As of this writing,
Defendant Lorena Independent School District has not filed objections. The Court has conducted
a de novo review of Defendant Jewell’s motion to dismiss, the response, the report and recommendation, the objection to the report and recommendation, and the applicable laws. The Court has
also conducted a clear error review of Defendant Lorena Independent School District’s motion to
dismiss, the response, the report and recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough
review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should
be adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske., ECF No. 29, is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant April Jewell’s objections are OVERRULED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant Lorena Independent School District’s Partial
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 15, and Defendant April Jewell’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16,
are DENIED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation.

SIGNED this 5th day of June, 2024.

2