Barron v. Mclane - TCCO Executive Director

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
RAUL BARRON,
Institutional ID No. 01512364
Plaintiff,
v. No. 5:25-CV-00094-H
MARSHA MCLANE,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made thorough findings, conclusions, and
recommendations (FCR) that this Court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) with modifications.
Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff filed brief objections. Dkt. Nos. 17.
“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). In contrast, the district judge reviews any unobjected-to findings, conclusions,
and recommendations for plain error. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the
unobjected-to portions of the FCR for plain error and, finding none, expressly accepts and
adopts those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
Additionally, in light of Plaintiffs objections to the FCR, the Court has conducted a
de novo review of the relevant portions of the FCR and the record in this case. Plaintiff's
objections consist of mere disagreements with the Magistrate Judge’s wording, arguments
thoroughly addressed by the FCR, requests that the Court excuse his pleading deficiencies
Case 5:25-cv-00094-H-BV Document 18 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

because of his pro se status, and conclusory statements insisting that his claims have merit.
The Court finds that the objections do not warrant revisiting, modifying, or rejecting the
FCR. Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, but he does not refute the
factual or legal bases for her recommendation. Plaintiff has not shown that the Magistrate
Judge erred in recommending dismissal of these claims.
Thus, the objections are overruled, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. As a result, the
Court grants Defendant’s motion as modified by the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the Court
dismisses Plaintiff's official-capacity claims for money damages and retrospective
declaratory relief without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and dismisses
Plaintiff's official-capacity claims for injunctive relief and his individual capacity claims
with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
All relief not expressly granted is denied, and any pending motions are denied.
The Court will enter judgment accordingly.
So ordered.
Dated March/6_, 2026. ae
JAMESWESLEY HENDRIX
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00094-H-BV Document 18 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>