Ferguson et al v. Evans Delivery Company, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DAVID FERGUSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EVANS DELIVERY COMPANY, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-472-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendants Evans Delivery Company, Inc. (“Evans
Delivery”) and Dionne Williams’ (collectively “Defendants”) motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket No. 2. This case was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On December 29, 2025, Judge Love issued a report recommending that
Defendants’ motion be granted-in-part and denied-in-part, specifically granted as to
Plaintiffs’ claims for direct liability and ratification against Defendant Evans
Delivery and denied as to Plaintiffs’ allegations of gross negligence. Docket No. 8.
Neither party has filed objections, and the time-frame for doing so has passed.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.
Case 6:25-cv-00472-JDK-JDL Document 9 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to
file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate
Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal
conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous,
abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and findings, the Court finds
no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly,
the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 8) as the opinion of this Court. Defendant’s motion to
dismiss (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ claims for direct liability and
ratification against Defendant Evans Delivery and DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claims
for gross negligence. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint to
address the deficiencies of their claims for direct liability and ratification. Any
amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days of the issuance of this order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26th	January, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00472-JDK-JDL Document 9 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>