Opinion
Civil Action 4:19-CV-4473
11-17-2021
HOUSTC MALEA BYRD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MADISONVILLE, TEXAS, et al, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
ANDREW S. HANEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court in the' above referenced proceeding is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 47); the Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 50, 51); further replies and objections of the parties; and Judge Stacy's Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 64) that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants filed objections (Doc. No. 65) and Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. No. 66) to the objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation.
The Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the filings, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that genuine issues of material fact exist on whether Plaintiff was provided notice of an expulsion hearing. Therefore, based on the summary judgment argument on the notice issue, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's § 1983 due process claim. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants' Objections (Doc. No. 65) are OVERRULED; the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 64) is ADOPTED; and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED,
SIGNED.