Thomas v. Sillivent et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
FABIAN ANTONIO THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER SKYLAR SILLIVENT, in
his individual capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 4:25-cv-1207-JDK
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Fabian Antonio Thomas, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against
Defendants Officer Skylar Sillivent, Officer Aaron Gillespie, Officer Russell Douglas,
Officer Joaquin Reyes, Sergeant T.S. Vowell-Zundel, and the City of The
Colony, Texas (collectively “Defendants”) on November 4, 2025. Docket No. 1. The
case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition of the
action.
On January 19, 2026, Defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket Nos. 12, 14. On February 10, 2026, Judge
Love issued a Report recommending that Defendants’ motions be granted and
that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Docket No. 24. Plaintiff timely
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Docket No. 25.
The Court reviews objected-to portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation de novo. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge
Case 4:25-cv-01207-JDK-JDL Document 26 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”). The
Court conducting a de novo review examines the entire record and makes an
independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Plaintiff first objects to Judge Love’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s claims
against Officer Sillivent be dismissed. Plaintiff objects that the Report improperly
resolved factual disputes because Judge Love considered the arrest affidavit and
warrant attached to the motion to dismiss. Docket No. 25 at 2. However, “[a] court
may consider certain documents attached or referred to in the complaint or the
motion to dismiss, and critical to the claims, without converting a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion into one for summary judgment.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issued & Rights, 551
U.S. 308 (2007). Judge Love acted properly.
Judge Love was also correct in finding that Officer Sillivent did not obtain the
arrest warrant unlawfully. To establish that an arrest was obtained unlawfully, a
challenger must show that (1) an officer gave a knowingly or recklessly false
statement to procure a warrant and (2) the warrant would not establish probable
cause without the false information. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978).
Plaintiff argues that he has met the first Franks prong because Officer Sillivent
allegedly gave a false statement by omitting the fact that he did not observe bruises
or bodily injury to the victim. Docket No. 25 at 2. But Plaintiff demonstrates no
Case 4:25-cv-01207-JDK-JDL Document 26 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
reason to believe that this omission was made knowingly or recklessly. Nor does he
show any reason to believe the omission constituted a false statement to procure a
warrant. 	Because Plaintiff fails to meet the first Franks prong, this objection is
overruled. 	And because the first Franks prong is dispositive in determining the
lawfulness of an arrest warrant, Plaintiff’s objections relying on the second Franks
prong are also overruled.1 Id. ¶¶ III–IV.
Next, Plaintiff objects that he stated a viable claim for failure to intervene and
supervisory liability against the remaining individual Defendants. 	Id. at 3. 	This
objection is nothing more than a cursory argument without factual support. 	See
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000) (“In order
to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, however, a plaintiff must plead specific
facts, not mere conclusory allegations.”). 	A review of the pleadings indicates that
these claims were not sufficiently pleaded and fail to state a claim. 	Plaintiff makes
the same generic objection with respect to the Monell claims, which also fails to carry
weight in light of the pleaded allegations. 	Docket No. 25 at 3. 	Accordingly, these
objections are overruled.
Lastly, Plaintiff objects to a dismissal with prejudice. Id. Plaintiff argues that
his claims should not be dismissed without leave to amend and that at a minimum
they should be dismissed without prejudice. 	Id. 	Here, Plaintiff already had an
opportunity to amend his complaint in response to the motion (Docket No. 23), which
was addressed in the Report. Judge Love considered that the amended complaint did
1 Plaintiff’s citation in support of one of these objections, United States v. Lopez, 817 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2016),
appears to be a phantom case that does not exist.
Case 4:25-cv-01207-JDK-JDL Document 26 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
not change the viability of the asserted claims and found that further amendment
was futile in light of the affidavit of arrest. 	Docket No. 24 at 16 (citing Wilson v.
Grest, No. 17-2997, 2017 WL 4998651, at *4 (E.D. La. Nov. 2, 2017) (holding any
amendment to plaintiff’s complaint would be futile where “plaintiff’s allegations are
contradicted by the documentary evidence”)). 	Having reviewed the allegations, the
Court agrees with the futility analysis and finds that the claims are subject to
dismissal without an additional opportunity to amend.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
(Docket No. 24) is ADOPTED. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 12, 14)
are GRANTED, and this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final judgment will
be entered by separate order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2nd	March, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-01207-JDK-JDL Document 26 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>