Flowers v. Port Arthur Independent School District et al, No. 1:2014cv00210 - Document 36 (E.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER OF DISMISSAL adopting 34 Report and Recommendation and granting 23 Motion to Dismiss. The pltf's federal constitutional causes of action are dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relie f can be granted. The claims asserted on behalf of the pltf's minor daughter and pltf's remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and all pending motions not addressed herein are DENIED as MOOT. This constitutes a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/30/15. (tkd, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Flowers v. Port Arthur Independent School District et al Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION KIMOTHY RAY FLOWERS, Individually, and as next friend of M.S.F., V. PORT ARTHUR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT § § § § § § § § CASE NO. 1:14-CV-210 ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The court referred this case to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration. The magistrate judge submitted a report and recommendation on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Judge Giblin recommended that the Court grant that motion and dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff filed objections to Judge Giblin’s report. In his objections, the plaintiff contends that Judge Giblin is biased and exceeded his judicial authority in making his recommendation. Plaintiff further maintains that his due process rights have been violated. He also reiterates many of the same arguments he made in the numerous other filings before the Court. What he does not do, however, is point to specific findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in Judge Giblin’s detailed report. The plaintiff offers no supporting precedent or substantive argument on the legal issues addressed in the report. Judge Giblin conducted a thorough analysis of the relevant standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). He also offered support for his conclusion that the plaintiff cannot represent his minor daughter while proceeding pro se. Finally, Judge Giblin discussed the applicable law under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 specific to the type of plaintiff’s claim and the -1- Dockets.Justia.com qualified immunity issues and properly analyzed the case pled by plaintiff under these standards. Plaintiff failed to specifically respond on any of these legal issues both at the time the motion to dismiss was pending and also in his objections. By failing to specifically object to the magistrate judge’s findings and legal conclusions, the plaintiff has in turn failed to establish how Judge Giblin erred. The plaintiff’s objections consist solely of unsubstantiated attacks on the Court’s credibility and personal opinions about the status of his claims. This is insufficient to overturn Judge Giblin’s report. Pursuant to the plaintiff’s objections and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings, the record, the plaintiff’s objections, and the applicable law in this proceeding. After review, the court finds that Judge Giblin’s findings and recommendations should be accepted. The plaintiff’s objections [Doc. #35] are overruled. The court ORDERS that the report and recommendation [Doc. #34] on the defendant’s motion to dismiss is ADOPTED. The court further ORDERS that defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. #23] is GRANTED. The plaintiff’s federal constitutional causes of action are dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The claims asserted on behalf of the plaintiff’s minor daughter and plaintiff’s remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and all pending motions not addressed herein are DENIED as MOOT. This constitutes a final judgment for purposes of appeal. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30 day of March, 2015. ___________________________________ Ron Clark, 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.
