Lewis v. Ballard et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
AUSTIN TYLER LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
versus
J. BALLARD, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-04916
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Austin Tyler Lewis proceeds here pro se. He
filed this lawsuit, asserting claims against Defendants
Harris County and various individual officers pursuant to
42 USC §1983 for alleged retaliation and interference with
newsgathering in violation of the First Amendment,
unlawful detention and excessive force in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, spoliation in violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Monell
liability. See Dkt 7 (amended complaint). The matter was
referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho.
Dkt 4.
Pending are motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Defendants Harris
County, Harris County Attorney’s Office, and Harris
County Juvenile Probation Office, Rafael Pruneda,
Joscelyn Ballard, and Robert Valentine. Dkts 14–17.
Plaintiff didn’t respond.
Judge Ho issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
recommending that the motions be granted as unopposed
because Plaintiff failed to respond. Dkt 33 at 1, citing Local
Rule 7.4. For the avoidance of doubt, she also addressed the
merits of the motions, concluding that (i) Plaintiff’s First
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04916 Document 35 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
and Fourth Amendment claims are barred by the statute
of limitations, and (ii) his Fourteenth Amendment claim
fails because he lacks a protected interest in accessing his
arrest records. Id at 6–9. She further recommended sua
sponte dismissal of claims against Precinct 7 and Deputy
Glasgow, reasoning that the same deficiencies apply to
those claims. Id at 10–12.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 33.
The initial motion to dismiss by Defendant Robert
Valentine is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 6.
The motions by Defendants Harris County, Harris
County Attorney’s Office, and Harris County Juvenile
Probation Office, Rafael Pruneda, Jocelyn Ballard, and
Robert Valentine to dismiss are GRANTED. Dkts 14, 15, 16
& 17.
All claims against those Defendants are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
All claims against Deputy Glasgow and Harris County
Constable Precinct 7 are also DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
Case 4:25-cv-04916 Document 35 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 03, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-04916 Document 35 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3