Opinion
Civil Action 1:20-cv-00209
08-30-2022
BERI DAVE, “Plaintiff,” v. DAVID C. LAIRD, etal., “Defendants.”
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Rolando Olvera United States District Judge
Before the Court are these pleadings: Plaintiff s “Complaint for Violations of Civil Rights” (Dkt. No. 1) and “More Definite Statement of All Claims” (Dkt. No. 54), Defendants City of South Padre Island, David C. Laird, and Claudine O'Carroll's “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12 and Alternatively Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Defendants' MTD”) (Dkt. No. 82), “Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation” (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 105), and Plaintiffs “Response to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation” (“Objections”) (Dkt. No. 109).
The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against David C. Laird. See Dkt. No. 93. The only claims remaining are Plaintiff's claims against Jaime Rodriguez and his claims against the City of South Padre Island and Chief of Police Claudine O'Carroll, which depend on the conduct of Jaime Rodriguez. See Dkt. Nos. 62, 93.
A party may contest the proposed findings and conclusions in a report and recommendation by filing written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, party's objections to portions of a report and recommendation entitle him to de novo review by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Objections must specifically identify findings or recommendations in the R&R. The court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or*general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir: 1987). Proposed findings and recommendations to which no objections were filed are reviewed for clear error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,150-53, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2017).
Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. No. 109. But Plaintiffs objections are conclusive and do not address any plausible claim for relief. In summary, Plaintiffs objections are a general objection to the R&R. The Court need not consider such objections and has therefore reviewed the R&R and the record for clear error. See Stafford v. Berryhill, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105778 (W.D.T.X 2019) (citing Battle, 834 F.2d at 421; see also 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 to accept the recommendation.”). Finding no clear error, the R&R is ADOPTED.
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint. Lone Star Fund V(U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010).
Defendants' MTD (Dkt. No. 82) is GRANTED. All claims against Defendants' Jaime Rodriguez, City of South Padre Island, and Claudine O'Carroll are DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to close this case.