Estate of Salas v. City of Galena Park

Full title: ESTATE OF HECTOR SALAS, JR., HECTOR SALAS, SR., ANDREA SILVA and CYNTHIA…

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of Texas

Date published: Dec 21, 2023

CIVIL 4:19-CV-04479 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2023)

Opinion

CIVIL 4:19-CV-04479

12-21-2023

ESTATE OF HECTOR SALAS, JR., HECTOR SALAS, SR., ANDREA SILVA and CYNTHIA MONTIEL, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF GALENA PARK, CYNTHIA JIMENEZ, JAMES KNOX and ADRIAN HERRERA, Defendants.

DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is the November 22, 2023 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Bray. (Dkt. No. 68). Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendant Jimenez's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 65), be granted. (Dkt. No. 68).

The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections. (Dkt. No. 69). On December 20, 2023, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's objections. (Dkt. No. 70). Plaintiff disagrees with Judge Bray's decision but does not raise any factual or legal issues warranting reversal. Moreover, Plaintiff has raised issues in the Objections to the M&R that were not briefed before Judge Bray. Those arguments are waived. FireFighters' Ret. Sys. v. EisnerAmper, L.L.P., 898 F.3d 553, 559 (5th Cir. 2018) (stating that an argument raised for the first time in objections is forfeited).

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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).

The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:

(1) Judge Bray's M&R (Dkt. No. 68) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and

(2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 65), is GRANTED.

It is SO ORDERED.