Mosquera v. Layland et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ABILENE DIVISION
NICHOLAS DAVID MOSQUERA,
Institutional ID No. 02371827
Plaintiff,
No. l:24-CV-00061-H
AMANDA LAYLAND, atal.,
Defcndants
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RTCO ATION OF THE UNI STATES GISTRATE GE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation in this prisoner civil-rights case. Dkt. No. 32. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the court dismiss all but one of Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 claims for
lailure to state a claim. In particular, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
dismiss Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Defendant Jaime
McGowan and his Fourteenth Amendment access-to-courts claims against Defendant
Amanda Layland that are based on his state habeas claims and challenge to a child-support
lien.
But the Magisfrate Judge concludes that Plaintiffs access-to-courts claim against
Layland that is based on his state criminal appeal survives preliminary screening and
recommends that the Court proceed with service of process on this claim, requiring an
answer from Layland. Plaintiffdid not frle any objections.
The District Coun has conducted an independent review of the record in this case
and reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report for plain enor. Finding no plain error, the
Case 1:24-cv-00061-H Document 33 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Court accepts and adopts the findings offact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge
The Court therefore orders that:
(1) Plaintiffs Section 1983 Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Jaime
McGowan is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See 28
U.S.C. 0 1e1s(eX2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiffs Section 1983 Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendant
Amanda Layland that are based on Plaintiffs state habeas claims and
challenge to a child-support lien are dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim. See id
(2)
(3) Partial final judgment should be entered as to the above-described Defendants
and claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54@). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
s4(b).
The Court will enter a separate order directing service and requiring an
answer from Layland on Plaintiffs remaining Fourteenth Amendment claim.
(4)
All relief not expressly ganted is denied.
The Court will enter judgment under Rule 54(b) accordingly.
So ordered.
Dated F-Jxr^-r L ,2026
U
JAME WESLEY HENDRIX
Uni States District Judge
2
Case 1:24-cv-00061-H Document 33 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>