Summary
denying motion to dismiss because the plaintiff alleged facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that he was terminated because of his race
Summary of this case from Washington v. Alief Indep. Sch. Dist.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-00188
03-26-2019
KEVIN BERNARD DAVIS Plaintiff. v. MATAGORDA COUNTY, ET AL. Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison. Dkt. 65. This Court referred six motions to Judge Edison pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See Dkt. 60
All defendants have filed Objections. See Dkts. 68, 70, 71. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made." After conducting this de novo review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Based on the pleadings, the record and the applicable law, the Court ACCEPTS Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that:
• Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation (Dkt. 65) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court;
• Defendant Matagorda County's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 30) is DENIED; County Commissioner James Gibson's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 31) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Defendant, William David Anders', in his official and individual capacities, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Based on Qualified Immunity (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay Discovery (Dkt. 33) is DENIED as moot;
• Specifically, (i) the First Amendment retaliation claim brought against Anders be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity; (ii) the race discrimination claim brought against Commissioner Gibson under Section 1981 be dismissed; (iii) the hostile work environment claim brought against Commissioner Gibson under Section 1981 be dismissed; (iv) Defendants' Joint Motion to Stay Discovery be denied as moot; and (v) in all other respects, Defendants' motions to dismiss be denied; and
• In the interest of clarity, the following claims survive this ruling: (1) all claims against the County; (2) hostile work environment (Section 1981 and Equal Protection Clause) against Anders (individual capacity); (3) race discrimination (Section 1981 and Equal Protection Clause) against Anders (individual capacity); (4) race discrimination against Commissioner Gibson (Equal Protection Clause) (individual capacity); (5) hostile work environment against Commissioner Gibson (Equal Protection Clause) (individual capacity); and (6) First Amendment retaliation against Commissioner Gibson (individual capacity).
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 26th day of March, 2019.
/s/_________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge