From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simmons v. Texas Water Development Board

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
Jun 20, 2006
Cause No. A-05-CA-432-LY (W.D. Tex. Jun. 20, 2006)

Opinion

Cause No. A-05-CA-432-LY.

June 20, 2006


ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


Before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 filed January 5, 2006 (Doc. #22); Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 filed January 17, 2006 (Doc. #24); and Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss filed January 30, 2006 (Doc. #26). The motion, response, and reply were referred to the Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, as amended.

The Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation on June 1, 2006 (Doc. #45). The Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Simmons's section 1983 claims against Defendant Texas Water Development Board and Defendant Kevin J. Ward, except as to any claim for prospective injunctive relief against Ward in his official capacity. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that this Court dismiss Simmons's claims under section 1981 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in their entirety. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation, and thereby secure a de novo review by the District Court. A party's failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a Report and Recommendation bars that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Objections were due June 16, 2006. No party has filed objections to the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the report and recommendation. The Court, having reviewed the entire record and finding no plain error, accepts the report and recommendation filed in this cause.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #45) filed in this cause is hereby APPROVED and ACCEPTED by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Doc. #22) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Laverne Simmons's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Texas Water Development Board and Defendant Kevin J. Ward, except as to any claim for prospective injunctive relief against Ward in his official capacity, are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Laverne Simmons's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution are DISMISSED in their entirety.


Summaries of

Simmons v. Texas Water Development Board

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
Jun 20, 2006
Cause No. A-05-CA-432-LY (W.D. Tex. Jun. 20, 2006)
Case details for

Simmons v. Texas Water Development Board

Case Details

Full title:LAVERNE SIMMONS, PLAINTIFF, v. TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND J. KEVIN…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

Date published: Jun 20, 2006

Citations

Cause No. A-05-CA-432-LY (W.D. Tex. Jun. 20, 2006)