McQueen v. Tyler County Sheriff's Office et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DWAYNE MCQUEEN, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:22-CV-14
§
TYLER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, §
§
Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Dwayne McQueen, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit against the Tyler
County Sheriff’s Office.1
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The magistrate judge recommends granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and
dismissing the above-styled action as frivolous and for failing to state a claim. Additionally, the
magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available
evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. This
requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes plaintiff’s objections are
without merit.2
1
2
Plaintiff originally also sued the Sheriff of Tyler County. At a pretrial conference conducted on December
2, 2024, however, plaintiff dismissed his claims against Sheriff Bryan Weatherford.
Following the magistrate judge’s report, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The
defendant opposes the motion. Under Rule 15, leave of court is required in this case because plaintiff did not
file his motion in a timely manner. Instead, plaintiff waited until almost four years after filing his complaint
to try to amend his claims. In the motion, plaintiff states he seeks to add “responsible officials,” five
unknown officers, as parties to this action. Plaintiff, however, has shown neither that the
prospective defendants received notice of the claims within the limitations period nor that they knew or
should have known that the claims would have been brought against them. Therefore, plaintiff’s new
claims are barred by limitations and allowing the amendment would not be in the interest of justice.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied.
Case 9:22-cv-00014-MAC-ZJH Document 43 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

O R D E R
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. It is
ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this
action is DISMISSED as frivolous and for failing to state a claim. Additionally, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. A final judgment
will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
2
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 9th day of March, 2026.
Case 9:22-cv-00014-MAC-ZJH Document 43 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>