Allen, Jr. et al v. Hays, Houston Police Officer, In His Individual Capacity et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOHN ALLEN, JR., et al., §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-00171
§
JUSTIN THOMAS HAYES, §
§
Defendant. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the April 28, 2026, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 360).
Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 333), be granted in part and denied in part, and that
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 335), be denied. (Dkt. No. 360).1
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On May 12 and 13, 2026, Plaintiffs and
Defendant filed objections. (Dkt. Nos. 361, 362, 363). On May 19, 2026, Defendant filed a
response. (Dkt. No. 364). On May 21, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a response. (Dkt. No. 365).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified
1 Judge Bray also denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash, (Dkt. No. 317); denied as moot
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Due Process, (Dkt. No. 324); denied as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration, (Dkt. No. 325); denied without prejudice Defendant’s Motion to Strike, (Dkt.
No. 332); and denied as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, (Dkt. No. 336).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:18-cv-00171 Document 366 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After
conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which
objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and
adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Judge Bray’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 360), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its
entirety as the holding of the Court;2
(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 333), is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and
(3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 335), is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on May 26, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 While adopting Judge Bray’s M&R in its entirety as the holding of the Court, in
paragraph on Page 3 of the M&R beginning, “Officer Hayes and his partner,” the Court notes that
the correct date and time is “approximately 12:40 AM on November 4, 2015,” not, “November 4,
2025.” (See Dkt. No. 360 at 3).
Case 4:18-cv-00171 Document 366 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2