Turnbull v. Bd. of Directors State Bar of Tex.

Full title: EDWARD TURNBULL, IV, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STATE BAR OF…

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

Date published: Feb 27, 2024

1:23-CV-314-RP (W.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2024)

Opinion

1:23-CV-314-RP

02-27-2024

EDWARD TURNBULL, IV, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants.

ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane concerning Defendants'¹ Motions to Dismiss, (Dkts. 22, 24, 27, 32, 35, 38, and 46). (R. & R., Dkt. 57). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Objs., Dkt. 58).² Two responses to Plaintiff's objections were also filed, urging the Court to adopt the report and recommendation. (Dkts. 60, 61).

1 Plaintiff Edward Turnbull, IV (“Plaintiff”) sued the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas (“SBOT”), the Commission for Lawyer Discipline (“CLD”), the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, and over 50 individuals associated with SBOT and/or the CLD. (Dkt. 20, at ¶¶ 2-18.

2 It appears that Plaintiff inadvertently filed identical objections twice. (Compare Dkt. 58 with Dkt. 59). Accordingly, the Court considers these identical, and only cites to the first docket entry.

A party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Because Plaintiff timely objected to the report and recommendation, the Court reviews the report and recommendation de novo. Having done so and for the reasons given in the report and recommendation, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections and adopts the report and recommendation as its own order.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane, (Dkt. 57), is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, (Dkt. 27, 35, 38, 46), are GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The remaining Motions to Dismiss, (Dkt. 22, 24, and 32), are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Court will enter final judgment by separate order.