United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
Rodriguez United States District Judge
date, the Court considered United States Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth Chestney's Report and Recommendation regarding
this case, filed June 25, 2019 (docket no. 8), and
Plaintiff's objections, filed July 8, 2019 (docket no.
11). After careful consideration, the Court ACCEPTS
Magistrate Judge Chestney's recommendation and DISMISSES
Original Complaint names as Defendants Legend Oaks Healthcare
& Rehabilitation (“Legend Oaks”), Autumn
Winds Living & Rehabilitation (“Autumn
Winds”), and Adult Protective Services, New Braunfels
(“APS”). Plaintiff Marjorie Woods alleges she is
the durable and medical power of attorney for her mother, who
is physically and mentally impaired because of a stroke.
placed her mother in Legend Oaks, a nursing and
rehabilitation facility, because she could no longer care for
her mother in her compromised condition. Then, Plaintiff
alleges that, in January 2019, Plaintiff's sister removed
Plaintiff's mother from Legend Oaks and placed her in
another facility, Defendant Autumn Winds. Plaintiff alleges
she did not authorize this move.
the move, Plaintiff alleges she cannot get information on her
mother's condition or communicate with her. On April 19,
2019, Plaintiff alleges she tried to visit Autumn Winds with
two police officers and a friend of her mother's. She
alleges Autumn Winds questioned the authenticity of
Plaintiff's power of attorney documents and did not allow
Plaintiff to see her mother. Plaintiff also learned Defendant
APS is investigating her for exploitation and for using her
mother's funds for her own benefit. Plaintiff alleges
Legend Oaks and Autumn Winds are holding her mother against
her will to get her mother's Social Security payments and
she alleges her sister is acting as power of attorney without
original complaint brought claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Medicare Act, and False
Claims Act, and brought state law claims of kidnapping and
slander or defamation. Magistrate Judge Chestney ordered
Plaintiff to submit a more definite statement, which noted
legal deficiencies with Plaintiff's claims under the ADA,
Medicare Act, and False Claims Act. The More Definite
Statement Plaintiff filed states she no longer intends to
pursue her Medicare Act claim, but it reasserts her remaining
claims. The More Definite Statement also adds another
defendant, Bank of America Financial Center, which Plaintiff
alleges has terminated Plaintiff's right to access her
mother's bank account in violation of the power of
attorney documents. Plaintiff also states that she is
bringing all claims on behalf of her mother, Linda Faye
Woods, based on her legal status as durable power of
Report and Recommendations, Magistrate Judge Chestney notes
that some Defendants are Texas citizens, as is Plaintiff, so
there is not diversity of citizenship. Further, Magistrate
Judge Chestney concludes that Plaintiff does not state a
viable ADA or False Claims Act claim, and accordingly
recommends dismissal of this case.
Report or Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge that is
properly objected to requires de novo review.
See 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 or
recommendations to which objection is made.”). Such a
review means the Court will examine the entire record and
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 Comm'n, 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).
provided by Rule 72(b), Plaintiff had 14 days to file
specific written objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff timely filed her objections.
Plaintiff's objections are generally non-responsive to
the Report and Recommendation, but in an abundance of caution
the Court will conduct a de novo review.
initial matter, it is not disputed that Plaintiff and at
least some Defendants are Texas citizens, which destroys
diversity of citizenship. For this Court to have
jurisdiction, then, Plaintiff must state at least one viable
federal claim. The only ...