Hicks v. Dallas County Community Colleges, No. 3:2017cv00809 - Document 44 (N.D. Tex. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss; granting 24 Motion to Strike; denying 33 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 38 Findings and Recommendations on Case; granting plaintiff 28 days to replead and to effect proper service. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 12/28/2017) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hicks v. Dallas County Community Colleges Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION AMY M. HICKS, Plaintiff, § § § § § § § § v. DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGES, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-0809-D ORDER After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and plaintiff’s objections and defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct in part. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted in part as follows. Defendant’s May 30, 2017 motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) is granted. Plaintiff is given 28 days from the date of this order to file a second amended complaint* and to effect proper service of the summons and second amended complaint on defendant. Defendant’s July 11, 2017 motion to strike is granted. *As the magistrate judge noted in her findings, conclusions, and recommendation, plaintiff’s verified answers to the magistrate judge’s questionnaire constitute an amendment to the complaint. Accordingly, the amended complaint required by this order will be treated as plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff’s August 25, 2017 motion for summary judgment is denied as moot. SO ORDERED. December 28, 2017. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
