Williams v. City of Richardson et al, No. 3:2016cv02944 - Document 16 (N.D. Tex. 2017)
Court Description: Order Accepting 14 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 10 Motion to Dismiss. The court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss to the extent that it dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's Title VII, Americans with Disabilities A ct (ADA), and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims against Defendants Daryl Fourte, Jose Moreno, Cheree Bontrager, Ryan Delzell, Travis Switzer, Hunter Stephens, and Randy Jones in their individual capacities; dismisses with prejudice P laintiff's Title VII, ADA and ADEA claims that are based on adverse employment actions that occurred before 9/30/2015; dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's Threat with use of Local Law Enforcement and Constructive Labor Practices; dismisses without prejudice; Plaintiff's HIPAA claim for lack of jurisdiction; and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims against the City, and section 1981 claims against all Defendants. Plaintiff shall file an amended pleading that addresses the deficiencies identified by the court, and the amended pleading must be filed by 10/30/2017. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 9/30/2017) (epm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. City of Richardson et al Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ANDRE W. WILLIAMS, SR., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF RICHARDSON, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-2944-L ORDER Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10), filed January 13, 2017. On September 8, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver entered the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted in part. No objections per se were filed to the Report by Plaintiff Andre W. Williams, Sr. (“Plaintiff”); however, he did file a document titled “Plaintiff’s Response to the Findings Conclusions and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge and Amended Petition.” To the extent that Plaintiff objects to the Report, the court conducted a de novo review of the Report and determines that the objections should be and are hereby overruled. Having reviewed the record in this case and the Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. The court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss to the extent that it dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) claims against Defendants Daryl Fourte, Jose Moreno, Cheree Bontrager, Ryan Delzell, Travis Switzer, Hunter Stephens, and Randy Jones in their individual Order – Solo Page Dockets.Justia.com capacities; dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s Title VII, ADA and ADEA claims that are based on adverse employment actions that occurred before September 30, 2015; dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s “Threat with use of Local Law Enforcement” and “Constructive Labor Practices”; dismisses without prejudice; Plaintiff’s HIPAA claim for lack of jurisdiction; and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims against the City, and section 1981 claims against all Defendants. Judge Toliver recommended Plaintiff be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to replead only his Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims against the City, and his section 1981 claims against all Defendants. The court agrees and will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his pleadings in accordance with the standard set forth in the Report. Plaintiff shall file an amended pleading that addresses the deficiencies identified by the court, and the amended pleading must be filed by October 30, 2017. ∗ If Plaintiff fails to amend as herein directed, this action may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It is so ordered this 30th day of September, 2017. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge ∗ Although Plaintiff filed what appears to be an amended pleading on September 25, 2017, it is premature, as the court had not ruled on the Report. Accordingly, Plaintiff must file his amended complaint in accordance with the court’s instructions. Order – Solo Page
]]>
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.
