Diez v. Collier et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:25-cv-00185 Document 39 _~ Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JAMES LOGAN DIEZ,
Plaintiff,

V.

BRYAN COLLIER, et al.,

COR CO? 40? (0? CO> (OD) CO? CK KP

Defendants.

Page 1 of 2

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
July 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00185

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and

Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 33). The M&R recommends the Court:

Id. at 20-21.

Grant Director Lumpkin and Director Guerrero’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings, (D.E. 28);

Dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's individual capacity claims against Director
Lumpkin and Director Collier;

Dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff's official capacity First Amendment claim
against Director Lumpkin and Director Guerrero for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction;

Dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs state law claim under section 500.001 of the
Texas Government Code; and

Deny Plaintiffs construed motion to amend his complaint.

The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate

Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No

objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only

determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United

States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan

Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon,

J.) (citation omitted).

1/2

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 2:25-cv-00185 Document 39

Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD ‘Page 2 of 2

Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings

of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous

or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 33). Accordingly, the Court:

e GRANTS Director Lumpkin and Director Guerrero’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings, (D.E. 28);

e DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs individual capacity claims against Director

Lumpkin and Director Collier;

e DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs official capacity First Amendment
claim against Director Lumpkin and Director Guerrero for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction;

e DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs state law claim under section 500.001 of

the Texas Government Code; and

e DENIES Plaintiffs construed motion to amend his complaint.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
July 2/57, 2026

2/2

/ _

\ LAN ‘=

DAVIDS. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE