Garcia v. City of McAllen et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
CATALINA ANGELICA GARCIA, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-00364
§
CITY OF MCALLEN, and §
OMAR CABALLERO, §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the January 16, 2026, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Juan F. Alanis. (Dkt. No. 35).
Judge Alanis made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendants’
Consolidated Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and,
Alternatively, for More Definite Statement, (Dkt. No. 24), be granted and that Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 23), be dismissed, (Dkt. No. 35).
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 January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed 10
objections. (Dkt. No. 37). These objections assert that the M&R erred by (1) applying an
incorrect “derivative-injury framework” when analyzing Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint, (2) importing a “seizure or arrest” requirement into the standing analysis,
(3) labeling Plaintiff as a bystander, (4) finding that a seizure had not occurred when
Plaintiff was barred from reaching her child, (5) dismissing Plaintiff’s parental rights
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00364 Document 38 Filed 02/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
claim with prejudice under a “best case” doctrine without a futility finding,
(6) dismissing Plaintiff’s ADA claim with prejudice, (7) dismissing Plaintiff’s Monell and
failure to train claim, (8) discounting allegations and demands within the First Amended
Complaint, (9) not allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ Reply,
(Dkt. No. 30), and (10) denying Plaintiff an opportunity to cure defects in her First
Amended Complaint, (see generally Dkt. No. 37).
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
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) Magistrate Judge Alanis’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 35), is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court;
(2) Defendants’ Consolidated Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint and, Alternatively, for More Definite Statement,
(Dkt. No. 24), is GRANTED;
(3) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 23), is DISMISSED as
follows;
a. Any claim brought on behalf of A.O. is DISMISSED without
prejudice;
Case 7:25-cv-00364 Document 38 Filed 02/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
b. Plaintiff’s claims brought under Section 1983 alleging unlawful arrest
and excessive force are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
standing;
c. Plaintiff’s claims brought under Section 1983 alleging parental rights
violations under the Fourteenth Amendment are DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim;
d. Plaintiff’s claims under Monell for municipal liability are DISMISSED
with prejudice for failure to state a claim;
e. Plaintiff’s claims brought under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
standing; and
f. Any and all claims brought under Texas state law are DISMISSED
without prejudice.
(4) Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions from Defendants, (Dkt. No. 29), is
DENIED as moot.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on February 13, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00364 Document 38 Filed 02/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3