Grega et al v. City of Canton et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
RICHARD GREGA, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF CANTON, TEXAS, c/o CITY
SECRETARY, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-90-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs, members of the Mennonite church (“Member Plaintiffs”) and those
claiming to have interest in the Mennonite church (“Non-Member Plaintiffs”),
proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 1983 on
March 20, 2025. Docket No. 1. On November 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Non-Member Plaintiffs’
claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, and that the Member
Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 	Docket
No. 101. 	The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the state claims be
dismissed without prejudice. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff Richard Grega filed objections
to the Report. Docket No. 103.
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
of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
Case 6:25-cv-00090-JDK-JDL Document 123 Filed 01/11/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,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’s only objection to the Report was to the discussion that an amended
complaint was not timely received as ordered by the court. Docket No. 103. Plaintiff
claims that the amended complaint was timely mailed but not received by the Clerk’s
office. 	Id. 	Even if this was true, the Plaintiff’s objection is non-responsive to the
actual reason for the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal: the Non-
Members lack standing and the claims brought by the Member Plaintiffs fail to state
a claim. 	Because no objections to the Report have been made to the substantive
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the
District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon
grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass,
79 F.3d at 1430. Having reviewed these conclusions, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
(Docket No. 101) is ADOPTED. 	The Non-Member Plaintiffs’ federal claims are
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of standing, and the Member Plaintiffs’
federal 	claims 	are 	DISMISSED 	with 	prejudice 	for 	failure 	to 	state 	a 	claim.
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ state claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Case 6:25-cv-00090-JDK-JDL Document 123 Filed 01/11/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11th	January, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00090-JDK-JDL Document 123 Filed 01/11/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>