Jeter v. Child Support Division et al, No. 3:2018cv00273 - Document 25 (N.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: Order Accepting 24 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 13 Motion to Dismiss; 15 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, Dallas County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 13 is granted, all federal claims against the Dallas County Defenda nts and all state law tort claims against the County by Plaintiff are dismissed with prejudice, and the Dallas County Defendants' other grounds for dismissal are denied as moot. CSD's Motion to Dismiss 15 is granted, and all claims by P laintiff against CSD are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, the court sua sponte dismisses with prejudice all remaining claims by Plaintiff under Texas law or the Texas Constitution against the Dallas County Defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/27/2018) (epm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jeter v. Child Support Division et al Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SAMUEL OF THE FAMILY JETER, Plaintiff, v. CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 42 U.S.C. § 1983(3); DALLAS COUNTY; DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS CLERK OF COURT; DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS SUPERIOR COURT; and DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS Child Support Division, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-273-L ORDER Before the court are Dallas County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6) (Doc. 13), filed May 2, 2018, by Defendants Dallas County, Texas (“Dallas County”); the Dallas County Clerk of Court; the Dallas County Texas Superior Court; the Dallas County, Texas Child Support Division (“County CSD”) (collectively, “Dallas County Defendants”); and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 15), filed May 10, 2018, by Defendant Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Child Support Division (“CSD”), referred to by Plaintiff as the Child Support Division 42 U.S.C. § 1983(3). On November 5, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending that the court: (1) grant the Dallas County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and dismiss with prejudice all federal claims against the Dallas County Defendants and all state law tort claims against Dallas County for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) grant Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com CSD’s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss without prejudice all claims against CSD under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (3) sua sponte dismiss with prejudice all remaining claims by Plaintiff under Texas law or the Texas Constitution under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (4) refuse to allow Plaintiff to further amend his pleadings. No objections to the Report were filed. After reviewing the motions, pleadings, file, the record, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, Dallas County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 13) is granted, all federal claims against the Dallas County Defendants and all state law tort claims against the County by Plaintiff are dismissed with prejudice, and the Dallas County Defendants’ other grounds for dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(5) are denied as moot. CSD’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (Doc. 15) is granted, and all claims by Plaintiff against CSD are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, the court sua sponte dismisses with prejudice all remaining claims by Plaintiff under Texas law or the Texas Constitution against the Dallas County Defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although Plaintiff has not requested an additional opportunity to amend his pleadings, the court determines for the reasons explained by the magistrate judge that he should not be given another chance to do so because it appears he has stated his best case and allowing him to further amend would be likely be futile and unnecessarily delay the resolution of this litigation. Order – Page 2 It is so ordered this 27th day of November, 2018. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Page 3
]]>
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.
