Scott v. Harris County Texas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EDWARD C. SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
versus
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,
et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-04139
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Edward C. Scott sues Defendants Harris
County, Texas, and May Walker. He filed an amended
complaint on December 16, 2024, and brings claims for age
discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to
accommodate, constructive termination, and negligence
per se. Dkt 6 at ¶¶28–68.
Walker filed a motion to dismiss for improper service
and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. Dkt 14. She
notes that Plaintiff didn’t serve her until April 4, 2025. Id
at 5; see also Dkt 13 at 2 (proof of service). Rule 4(m)
required Plaintiff to serve Walker within 90 days of filing
the amended complaint—meaning by March 16, 2025.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 3. Judge Palermo
issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted and
the claims against Walker be dismissed under Rule 4(m).
Dkt 16 at 2. She also noted that Plaintiff’s claims are
against Walker in her official capacity such that these
claims would merge with those against Harris County if
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04139 Document 27 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
repleaded. She thus recommended dismissal with
prejudice. Ibid.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon
review and consideration of the Memorandum and
Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this
Court. Dkt 16.
The motion by Defendant May Walker to dismiss is
GRANTED. Dkt 14.
The claims by Plaintiff Edward C. Scott against
Defendant May Walker are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
January 22, 2026
Case 4:24-cv-04139 Document 27 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2