Hunter v. City of Rice Police Department et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CEDENO HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF RICE POLICE
DEPARTMENT et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-0451-X
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation (FCR) of
the United States Magistrate Judge; Plaintiff Cedeno Hunter’s response; Hunter’s
motion for leave to file first amended complaint; Defendants’ response in opposition
to Hunter’s motion for leave; and Hunter’s reply. (Docs. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48).
Hunter, proceeding pro se, timely filed a response within the objection period.
Although styled as a response, the filing does not meaningfully object to the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusions regarding dismissal. Instead, Hunter’s
response expressly accepts the FCR but “only to the extent consistent with the right
to amend.”1 Specifically, Hunter accepted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
that the City of Rice Police Department, Navarro County Sheriff’s Office, or Navarro
County District Attorney’s Office should be dismissed as non-jural entities as well as
1 Doc. 45 at 3.
Case 3:25-cv-00451-X Document 49 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
the dismissal with prejudice of his state law tort claims against Officers Adams,
Guerrero, and Dolores.2
Liberally construing the response as an objection, the Court reviewed de novo
those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which
objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss3 and DISMISSES
Defendants Navarro County Sheriff’s Department, Navarro County District
Attorneys’ Office, and the City of Rice Police Department from this action;
DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Hunter’s state-law claims for negligence,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault and battery against Officers
Dolores, Adams and Guerrero; and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Hunter’s
remaining claims.
The Court also GRANTS Hunter’s motion for leave to amend his complaint.4
(Doc. 46). The Court directs the Clerk’s office to enter the amended complaint as of
the date of this order.
2 Id. at 1.
3 Docs. 20, 21, 22, 24.
4 “Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has not previously been afforded an opportunity
to amend his claims, the Court finds it appropriate to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
Complaint to comply with the federal pleading standards.” Doc. 44 (citing Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d
764, 767–68 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (stating, generally, that a pro se plaintiff should be allowed
to amend his complaint prior to dismissal)).
Case 3:25-cv-00451-X Document 49 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March 2026.
____________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00451-X Document 49 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>