Araguz v. Clinton, 1:18-cv-00148. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20190311607
Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROLANDO OLVERA , District Judge . Before the Court is the "Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" (hereafter "R&R") (Docket No. 20) in the above-captioned case. No objections were filed. After a de novo review of the record, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and GRANTS the following pleadings: (i) Defendant City of Harlingen, Texas's (hereafter "City") "Motion to Dismiss Defendant Scott Vega" (Docket No. 1 Ex.
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROLANDO OLVERA , District Judge . Before the Court is the "Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" (hereafter "R&R") (Docket No. 20) in the above-captioned case. No objections were filed. After a de novo review of the record, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and GRANTS the following pleadings: (i) Defendant City of Harlingen, Texas's (hereafter "City") "Motion to Dismiss Defendant Scott Vega" (Docket No. 1 Ex. 1..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROLANDO OLVERA, District Judge.
Before the Court is the "Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation" (hereafter "R&R") (Docket No. 20) in the above-captioned case. No objections were filed. After a de novo review of the record, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and GRANTS the following pleadings: (i) Defendant City of Harlingen, Texas's (hereafter "City") "Motion to Dismiss Defendant Scott Vega" (Docket No. 1 Ex. 1 at 50); (ii) the City's "Plea to the Jurisdiction" (Docket No. 1 Ex. 1 at 56); (iii) and the City's "Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings" (Docket No. 4). Thus, the following claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: (i) Plaintiff's state claims against Defendant Scott Vega; (ii) Plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution against the City; and (iii) Plaintiff's claims against the City's Police Department.
Subsequent to the R&R, Plaintiff filed an untimely "Response to the Motion to Dismiss" (hereafter "Untimely Response") (Docket No. 22) and a "Motion for Reconsideration" (Docket No. 23). The Magistrate Judge struck the Untimely Response and denied the Motion for Reconsideration. See Docket No. 26. The Defendants' Reply to the Untimely Response (Docket No. 24) and "Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to [the] Motion to Dismiss" (Docket No. 25) are rendered MOOT.
Source: Leagle
