Opinion
SA-21-CV-925-OLG (HJB)
01-22-2024
MATHIAS OMETU, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, CHIEF OF POLICE WILLIAM MCMANUS, DEVIN DAY, OFFICER, BADGE # 0490, RICHARD SERNA, OFFICER, BADGE # 1466, and DOES 1 THROUGH 20 INCLUSIVE, Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Henry J. Bemporad United States Magistrate Judge
To the Honorable United States District Judge Orlando L. Garcia:
This Supplemental Report and Recommendation concerns the status of any individual-capacity claims pending against Defendant Chief of Police William McManus. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (See Docket Entry 81.) For the reasons set out below, the undersigned concludes that there are no such pending claims.
Plaintiff originally filed this suit in state court, asserting constitutional and state-law claims against Defendants the City of San Antonio (“the City”), Chief McManus, and Officers Devin Day and Richard Serna as well as unidentified “John Doe” officers. (See Docket Entry 1, at 7.) The named Defendants removed the case to this Court, and the City and McManus filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket Entries 1 and 2.) The Court granted the motion to dismiss in part, ruling that any official-capacity claims against Chief McManus would be duplicative of Plaintiff' claims against the City, and noting that it was unclear whether Plaintiff had raised any individual-capacity claims against McManus himself. (Docket Entry 15, at 3.) Plaintiff, the City, and Officers Day and Serna all subsequently filed motions for summary judgment (see Docket Entries 42, 47, 48, 49, and 62); none of the motions addressed whether the case included any claims against McManus in his individual capacity.
The undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation on November 15, 2023, recommending that the City's and the officers' motions for summary judgment be granted, and Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment be denied. (Docket Entry 76.) The undersigned then returned the case to the District Court, before whom Plaintiff lodged objections to the Report and Recommendation, and a notice of dismissal as to the unidentified “John Doe” defendants. (See Docket Entries 77, 78, and 80.) However, the question of whether any individual-capacity claims exist against Chief McManus remained unresolved. Accordingly, the District Court held the undersigned's Report and Recommendation in abeyance and re-referred the matter for a supplemental recommendation as to any remaining claims against McManus in his individual capacity. (Docket Entry 81.)
In light of the District Court's order, the undersigned required the parties to file advisories indicating whether there are any remaining individual-capacity claims against Chief McManus that have not been addressed. (Docket Entry 82.) Both parties have now responded. (See Docket Entries 83 and 84.)
In his response, Plaintiff indicates that his “Complaint do[es] not name Chief McManus in his individual capacity,” but instead alleges that he was “a policymaker and an extension of the City of San Antonio.” (Docket Entry 84, at 2-3.) Plaintiff further concedes that, “[d]espite exercising due diligence in attempts to identify Defendant Chief McManus' liability in his individual capacity, [he] has not been able to ascertain any liability apart from the fact that he was acting in his official capacity as the Chief of Police and employee for the City of San Antonio and an extension of the City of San Antonio.” (Docket Entry 84, at 1.)
Plaintiff's advisory confirms that the official-capacity claims against Chief McManus- which the District Court already dismissed (see Docket Entry 15)-were the sole claims against McManus. (Docket Entry 15, at 3.) No individual-capacity claims exist against Chief McManus. Accordingly, the Court need take no further action with regard to Defendant McManus, as the official-capacity claims against him have been resolved.
Notice of Right to Object
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation on all parties by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by attorneys registered as a “filing user” with the Clerk of Court, or (2) by mailing a copy to those not registered by certified mail, return receipt requested. Written objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the same, unless this time period is modified by the District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
The parties shall file any objections with the Clerk of the Court and serve the objections on all other parties. Absent leave of Court, objections are limited to twenty (20) pages in length. An objecting party must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendations to which objections are being made and the basis for such objections; the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general objections. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this Report and Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo review by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, failure to file timely written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this Report and Recommendation shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to, proposed findings and conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).