Roe v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JOHN ROE, §
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § Case No. 3:19-CV-792-X-BK
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
ET AL., §
Defendants. §
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff John Roe’s Objection (Doc. 222) to Magistrate
Judge Toliver’s Order granting the Defendants’ Motions to Stay Discovery (Doc. 220).
The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the Order to which objection
was made and reviewed the remainder of the Order for plain error. Finding no error,
the Court OVERRULES Roe’s Objection.
Also before the Court are Magistrate Judge Toliver’s Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation (Doc. 226) as to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 183). Numerous objections were filed. The Court addresses two of
those objections.
First, Roe argues that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion was procedurally
improper because Roe’s Rule 72(a) Objection was pending before this Court. Second,
he argues that the Magistrate Judge improperly concluded that the Defendants’
Motion was uncontested when he had not filed his response due to his pending
objection. The Court agrees on both grounds.
Case 3:19-cv-00792-X-BK Document 236 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
Accordingly, the Court REJECTS the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also DENIES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and
ORDERS the Defendants to refile their Motion within fourteen (14) days of the
issuance of this order. Because Roe’s Rule 72(a) Objection is overruled by this order,
the Court DIRECTS Roe to file his response based on the discovery presently
available to him.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2026.
____________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:19-cv-00792-X-BK Document 236 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>