Salinas v. City of McAllen, Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
JUDY TANGUMA, as Next Friend of §
J.I.S., a Minor, and ANGEL GABRIEL §
SALINAS, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-00405
§
CITY OF MISSION, TEXAS, CITY OF §
MCALLEN, TEXAS, and ANTONIO §
“TONY” GARCIA, Individually and in §
His Official Capacity as SWAT Team §
Officer for the City of Mission, Texas, §
and Peace Officer for the City of §
McAllen, Texas, §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the May 6, 2026, Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker. (Dkt. No. 41). Judge Hacker
made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendant City of Mission,
Texas’s (“Mission”) Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 6), be granted, (Dkt. No. 41 at 2).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the R&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On May 20, 2026, Judy Tanguma, as next
friend of J.I.S., a minor, and Angel Gabriel Salinas (“Plaintiffs”) filed five objections. (Dkt.
No. 46). First, Plaintiffs object to the recommendation that Mission’s Motion to Dismiss
should be granted to the extent that it dismisses their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. (Id. at 2).
Second, Plaintiffs object to the finding that their live pleadings did not sufficiently state a
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00405 Document 48 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
claim for municipal liability. (Id.). Third, Plaintiffs object to the conclusion that their live
pleadings do not refer to any other specific instances of law-enforcement officers sharing
images of deceased bodies at crime scenes. (Id. at 2–3). Fourth, Plaintiffs object to the
finding that the incident does not present an extreme factual situation within the Fifth
Circuit’s precedent regarding ratification. (Id. at 3). Fifth, Plaintiffs object to the finding
that they did not offer any response to Mission’s argument that Plaintiffs’ request for
punitive or exemplary damages is barred. (Id.).
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 R&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 R&R and
adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Judge Hacker’s R&R, (Dkt. No. 41), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its
entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Defendant Mission’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 6), is GRANTED
without prejudice.
It is SO ORDERED.
Case 7:25-cv-00405 Document 48 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Signed on June 1, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00405 Document 48 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3