Duve v. Forrest et al

1/4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
SUSAN ELIZABETH DUVE,
Plaintiff.
V.
WILLIAM CHARLES FOREST, et
al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00158
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 21, 2026, all pretrial matters in this case were referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. 16.
Judge Edison filed a memorandum opinion, order, and recommendation on
September 29, recommending that the court do three things: (1) grant defendant
Sue A. Vaughan’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, dkt. 129—
for the same reasons stated in Judge Edison’s August 19th memorandum and
recommendation, dkt. 120, which this court adopted on September 4, dkt. 135;
(2) dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against defendants Judge John C. Maher Jr.,
Judge 	Ben 	Hardin, 	Janice 	L. 	Hawthorne, 	the 	Matagorda 	County 	Sheriff’s
Department, Sue A. Vaughan, Whitney L. Thompson, Pete Zurita, and Joy Ray
Hurtung for insufficient service of process; and (3) grant the Palacios Police
Department’s motion to dismiss, dkt. 130. Dkt. 141.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 152 Filed 10/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2/4
Thirty-three 	minutes 	after 	Judge 	Edison 	filed 	his 	memorandum 	and
recommendation on September 29, dkt. 141, the clerk docketed the plaintiff’s
notice of non-objection to the August 19th memorandum and recommendation,
dkt. 120, and request for extension of time to cure service, dkt. 142. The plaintiff
requested the court “order that the 21-day period to cure service does not begin
until Plaintiff has returned to Texas.” Dkt. 142. The plaintiff did not specify when
she would return to Texas. On October 5, the clerk docketed the plaintiff’s motion
for extension of time to effect service, in which the plaintiff requested that the court
grant the plaintiff an extension of unspecified time to effect service. Dkt. 150.
On October 13, the clerk docketed the plaintiff’s objections, dkt. 151, to the
September 29th memorandum and recommendation, dkt. 141. In that document,
the plaintiff requests a 30-day extension to effect service on defendants William
Charles Forrest, Tammy Jones-Deem, Vanguard, Maher, Hardin, Hawthorne, the
Matagorda County Sheriff’s Department, Vaughan, and Thompson. Id. at 3. The
plaintiff “does not object to the dismissal of Defendants Pete Zurita and Joy Ray
Hurtung.” Id. at 1. The plaintiff does not address Judge Edison’s recommendation
that the Palacios Police Department’s motion to be dismiss be granted because the
Palacios Police Department is not a juridical entity that is capable of being sued.
This court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of
the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection [has been] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After conducting
this de novo review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 152 Filed 10/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3/4
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Because the plaintiff’s request for extension of time, motion for
extension of time, and objections all raise the same issue, the court will address
these documents simultaneously.
The court has carefully considered the objections; the memorandum and
recommendation; the pleadings; and the record. The court accepts Judge Edison’s
memorandum and recommendation and adopts it as the opinion of the court.
The court will, however, grant the plaintiff’s motion for extension of time,
dkt. 151, and give the plaintiff one final extension of 21 days to effect service on
Forrest, 	Jones-Deem, 	Vanguard, 	Maher, 	Hardin, 	Hawthorne, 	Vaughan, 	and
Thompson. No further extensions of time to effect service will be given. Failure to
effect service by November 5 will result in the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims
against any unserved defendant.
The court will not grant the plaintiff an extension of time to serve the
Matagorda 	County 	Sheriff’s 	Department. 	The 	Matagorda 	County 	Sheriff’s
Department, like the Palacios Police Department and the Nacogdoches Police
Department, is not a juridical entity that is capable of being sued. The plaintiff has
until November 5 to show cause why the Matagorda County Sheriff’s Department
should also not be dismissed as a non-juridical entity.
It is therefore ordered that:
(1) 	Judge Edison’s memorandum and recommendation (Dkt. 141) is
approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court;
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 152 Filed 10/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4/4
(2) 	The Palacios Police Department’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 130) is
granted 	and 	the 	plaintiff’s 	claims 	against 	the 	Palacios 	Police
Department are dismissed;
(3) 	The plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to effect service
(Dkt. 150) is granted in part;
(4) 	The plaintiff has until Thursday, November 5, 2026, to effect service
on Forrest, Jones-Deem, Vanguard, 	Maher, Hardin, Hawthorne,
Vaughan, and Thompson or face dismissal of her claims against any
unserved defendant; and
(5) 	The plaintiff has until Thursday, November 5, 2026, to show cause
why the Matagorda County Sheriff’s Department should not be
dismissed as a non-juridical entity; and
(6) 	The plaintiff’s claims against Zurita and Hurtung are dismissed
without 	prejudice. 	The 	clerk 	is 	instructed 	to 	terminate 	these
defendants as parties to this case.
SIGNED on Galveston Island this 14th day of October 2026.
______________________________
JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 152 Filed 10/14/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4