CRABTREE v. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, 6:13-cv-903. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20150925m41
Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER , District Judge . The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for consideration. The Report and Recommendation recommends that Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Sovereign and Eleventh Amendment Immunity and Absence of Standing be granted with prejudice and that Plai
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER , District Judge . The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for consideration. The Report and Recommendation recommends that Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Sovereign and Eleventh Amendment Immunity and Absence of Standing be granted with prejudice and that Plain..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, District Judge.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for consideration. The Report and Recommendation recommends that Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Sovereign and Eleventh Amendment Immunity and Absence of Standing be granted with prejudice and that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. Plaintiff filed written objections (ECF 22), Defendants filed a Response (ECF 23), and Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF 24).
Having made a de novo review of the objections filed by Plaintiff, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct. The findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are, therefore, adopted as those of the Court.
The Defendant has requested reasonable attorneys' fees for the time spent responding to this suit. The Court has discretion whether or not to award attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Court will not award attorneys' fees in this case. It is thereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 13) is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE and Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF 17) is DENIED. Defendant's Request for attorneys' fees is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
