United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
RODRIGUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
date the Court considered United States Magistrate Judge
Henry J. Bemporad's Report and Recommendation in the
above-numbered and styled case, filed February 1, 2018,
(Docket no. 53) and Plaintiff Roberto Garcia's objections
thereto (Docket no. 57). After careful consideration, the
Court will ACCEPT Magistrate Judge Bemporad's
recommendation, GRANT IN PART AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN
PART Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docket nos. 41, 47),
DISMISS Plaintiff's § 1983 claims as barred by
limitations, DECLINE to exercise jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's related state claims, and DENY AS MOOT
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket no. 38) and
“Dispositive Motion” (Docket no. 42).
filed this case asserting civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and related state law claims. Docket no. 3.
Plaintiff alleges that on July 17, 2014, he was at his
sister's house when a female friend came over to talk to
him. Id. at 3. The friend allegedly asked Plaintiff
to drive her to a friend's house, to which Plaintiff
responded he was too tired to drive, and the friend drove
them both instead. Id. During the drive, the car
allegedly began to overheat, and they pulled over to let the
car cool down. Id. The friend left to go get help,
and Plaintiff moved into the driver's seat, where he fell
was allegedly awoken by police officers knocking on the car
window. Id. The officers allegedly asked Plaintiff
to exit the vehicle, and Plaintiff stated that he was having
car problems. Id. Defendant Officer Orta allegedly
arrived at the scene and asked Plaintiff where he was coming
from and whether he had been drinking. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff alleges that although there was no evidence that he
was intoxicated, Officer Orta arrested him, placed him in the
back of the police car, and took him to the police station.
Id. Plaintiff states that the criminal charges
brought against him were dismissed on December 4, 2015.
Id. at 5.
brings § 1983 claims alleging that he was detained
without reasonable suspicion, subjected to an unreasonable
search and seizure, had his expectation of privacy violated,
was arrested and sent to a detention center without probable
cause, charged with a DWI without any evidence, and
retaliated against for previously filing a complaint against
another police officer. Id. at 8. Plaintiff also
brings state law claims for malicious prosecution and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at
November 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend, Docket
no. 38, and on November 20, 2017, he filed a
“Dispositive Motion.” Docket no. 42. On November
13, 2017, Defendants Julio Orta and William McManus filed a
Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c), arguing in part that Plaintiff's claims are barred
by the statute of limitations. Docket no. 41. On December 15,
2017, Defendant City of San Antonio filed a Motion to
Dismiss, arguing the same. Docket no. 47. All motions were
referred to Magistrate Judge Bemporad.
Judge Bemporad issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
evaluating the pending motions on February 1, 2018. Docket
no. 53. Judge Bemporad found Plaintiff's § 1983
claims are barred by the statute of limitations and should be
dismissed. Id. at 3. Judge Bemporad found that this
Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. Id.
to Rule 72(b), the parties were given fourteen days to file
written objections to the Report and Recommendation. On
February 13, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed an objection.
Docket no. 57. Plaintiff objects to Judge Bemporad's
recommendation that his federal claims be dismissed as barred
by the statute of limitations.
no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review of it. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)
(“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is
made.”). In such cases, the Court need only review the
Report and Recommendation and determine whether it is either
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). On the
other hand, any Report or Recommendation that is objected to
requires de novo review. Such a review means that
the Court will examine the entire record and will make an
independent assessment of the law. The Court need not,
however, conduct a de novo review when the
objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature.
Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d
419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Additionally, “[p]arties
filing objections must specifically identify those findings
objected to.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d
404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982).
filed his objection to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendations before the expiration of the fourteen-day
deadline. As a result, the Court now conducts a de