Jones v. City of Grand Prairie

Full title: RONNEALL JONES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Northern District of Texas

Date published: Feb 16, 2023

3:22-CV-1489-X-BT (N.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2023)

Opinion

3:22-CV-1489-X-BT

02-16-2023

RONNEALL JONES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, et al., Defendants.

BRANTLEY STARR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

BRANTLEY STARR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 11]. Petitioner Ronneal Jones initiated this pro se action against the City of Grand Prairie, Texas and multiple City employees, alleging various civil rights violations stemming from his arrest at ¶ 2018 Martin Luther King, Jr. Parade and his inability to run in a school board election due to his criminal record.¹ The Magistrate Judge concluded that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the two-year statute of limitations on Jones's claims has expired.² Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

1 Doc. No. 11 at 1-3.

2 Id. at 5 (citing Stanley v. Foster, 464 F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2006)).

Jones filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's report, arguing that he was unable to fix his deficient complaint only because he “was falsely arrested on more charges” and asks the Court to allow him to “properly submit [his] suit once [he is] released” because it fails only for “a technical reason.”³ Jones does not dispute the expired statute of limitations or provide any reason why it should be tolled, waived, or otherwise disregarded. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Jones's objections.

3 Doc. No. 12 at 1.

The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. The Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Because, as the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, Jones has already pleaded his “best case” and failed to state a claim,⁴ the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Jones's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

4 Doc. No. 11 at 6 (citing Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 766-68 (5th Cir. 2009)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.