Damron v. Houston County, Texas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
TIMOTHY E. DAMRON,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
KRISTINA MASSEY, in her
individual and official capacity;
DWIGHT L. PHIFER, in his
individual and official capacity;
JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5; FEDERAL
CASE NO. SA-21-CA-0665-XR; and
CAUSE NO. 20-12-00335, named as
an administrative instrumentality,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:25-CV-00211-MJT
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE [Dkt. 26]
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to
United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this proceeding to the Honorable
Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter
findings of fact and recommend disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-
dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72.
On October 21, 2025, Judge Stetson recommended [Dkt. 26] denying as moot Defendant
Judge Dwight L. Phifer’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 8] because Plaintiff amended his complaint and
Defendant Phifer filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 20]. On November 5, 2025, the Clerk
of Court received “Plaintiff’s Limited Objection to Report and Recommendation (and Notice of
Pending Motion to Deem Matters Admitted and Facts Established)” [Dkt. 32].
Case 9:25-cv-00211-MJT-CLS Document 46 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. Plaintiff’s Filing
In his limited objection, Plaintiff states that he “agrees with [Judge Stetson’s] conclusion
and raises no objection to its adoption.” [Dkt. 32 at 2]. Accordingly, the Report and
Recommendation [Dkt. 26] is ADOPTED. In the remaining portions of his objection, Plaintiff, in
excess of the eight-page limit on objections, E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72(c), dedicates significant
time to discussing the facts of this case. He talks of preserving errors for appeal, evidentiary
standards only applicable at summary judgment, and his other claims in this case. That will all
come in due course, but for now it is irrelevant. Objections to the reports and recommendations
of magistrate judges serve a single purpose; they must be succinct, coherent, specific, and limited
to the substance of the report and recommendation to which the objections are raised.
II. Order
Plaintiff’s objection [Dkt. 32] is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation [Dkt.
26] is ADOPTED. Defendant Phifer’s first Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 8] is DENIED as moot.
____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 1st day of December, 2025.
Case 9:25-cv-00211-MJT-CLS Document 46 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>