From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCarty v. Dougherty

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Mar 12, 2021
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-182 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2021)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-182

03-12-2021

WILLIAM D. MCCARTY v. CHARLES DOUGHERTY, ET AL.


**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff William D. McCarty, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Charles Dougherty and Ed Jones.

The Court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and the pleadings. Plaintiff filed a notice of filing exhibits, which the Court liberally construes as objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). Plaintiff states that he does not object to the dismissal of defendant Jones, but he objects to the dismissal of his claim that defendant Dougherty falsely arrested him. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that defendant Dougherty lacked probable cause to arrest him for public intoxication. Arnold v. Williams, 979 F.3d 262, 269 (5th Cir. 2020). As a result, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted.

ORDER

Plaintiff's objections (docket entry #74) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge (docket entry #73) is ACCEPTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss (docket entry #35) is GRANTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

So Ordered and Signed

Mar 12, 2021

/s/_________

Ron Clark

Senior Judge


Summaries of

McCarty v. Dougherty

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION
Mar 12, 2021
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-182 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2021)
Case details for

McCarty v. Dougherty

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM D. MCCARTY v. CHARLES DOUGHERTY, ET AL.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION

Date published: Mar 12, 2021

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-182 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2021)

Citing Cases

Spence v. Taylor

See McCarty v. Dougherty, No. 9:17-CV-182, 2021 WL 956225, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2021) (“The Fourteenth…

Kennemer v. Denton Cnty.

“An officer's failure to provide a detainee with immediate medical treatment is considered an episodic act…