4:25-cv-03457•Bulfinch v. Montgomery County, Texas
Full text
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED July 14, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk Case 4:25-cv-03457 Document 66 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
Case 4:25-cv-03457 Document 66 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
Case 4:25-cv-03457 Document66-~ Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page1of2 United States District Court Southem District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 14, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION TIMOTHY WINTON BULFINCH AND BETTY JO MATHIS, Plaintiffs, Vv. Civil Action No. H-25-3457 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS ET AL., Defendants. MMMM Mm MM MH Ww ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On June 23, 2026, Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended that the court grant Defendants Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 46. Judge Bray also granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint by July 2, 2026, as to Defendants Mary Phillips and Deputy Ulises Garcia. Document No. 65 at 9-10. Because Judge Bray granted leave to amend, he recommended that the court deny as moot Phillips and Garcia’s Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 55. The parties were provided with notice and an opportunity to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendations. No party filed objections. The court has reviewed the recommendation and finds no error in law or fact. As to Defendants Montgomery County and AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO Case 4:25-cv-03457 Document66~ Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 46, the court ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation as its Memorandum and Opinion. Plaintiffs’ claims against Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Sheriff are DISMISSED. Plaintiffs failed to amend their complaint by the deadline. Because Plaintiffs failed to amend, denying Defendants Mary Phillips and Deputy Ulises Garcia’s Motion to Dismiss would be improper. Thus, Phillips and Garcia’s motion to dismiss, Document No. 55, remains pending and referred to Judge Bray. It is so ORDERED. 1H SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this day of July, 2025. , JR. S DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED S
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.