Opinion
No. 3:15-CV-2111-D
06-29-2015
DIETRICK JOHNSON, SR., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DALLAS, ET AL., Defendants.
FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
On June 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed this complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On June 23, 2015, that court transferred the case to the Northern District of Texas. Previously, on November 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed the identical complaint in the Northern District of Texas. See Johnson v. City of Dallas, et al., 3:14-CV-4015-P (N.D. Tex.). That complaint is currently pending. The undersigned United States Magistrate Judge therefore recommends that this case be dismissed as duplicative.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States Magistrate Judge recommends that this case be dismissed as duplicative.
Signed this 29 day of June, 2015.
/s/_________
PAUL D. STICKNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).