Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garcia v. Antonio

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division

March 2, 2018




         On this 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).


         Plaintiff 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 asleep. Id.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 10-11.

         On 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.

         Magistrate 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.

         Pursuant 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.


         Where 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).

         Plaintiff 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 novo review.


         I. Plaintiff's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.