Timothy P. O'Hara

“Hamilton Home Builders, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. 42] is GRANTED; ... The Texas Agencies' Opening Brief and Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 43] is GRANTED; ... IFIC's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 63] is GRANTED; ... Defendant Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 70] is GRANTED (collectively 'Defendants' Motions to Dismiss'); recommendation 'ADOPTED as MODIFIED to dismiss Mr. Fragstein's claims without prejudice'.”

“The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O'Hara [Doc. 102] is ADOPTED as MODIFIED; ... Defendant Warren's Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 83] is GRANTED;”

“The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 84] is GRANTED; Plaintiff's remaining claims against the served Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice ... [other claims] DISMISSED without prejudice.”

“The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, ECF No. 25, is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF 9, is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff's first and second claims for relief and DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff's third and fourth claims for relief”

“This Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 19] be DENIED.”

“To the extent necessary, the Court also RECOMMENDS that Claims One, Two, Three, and Five be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE against Defendant JeffCo.”

“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 61] be granted in full and that summary judgment be entered in Defendant's favor as to all of Plaintiff's claims.”

“Defendant's Motion to Exclude or Limit Certain Opinions of Dean Stansbury Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 [ECF 62] be granted and that the opinions of Mr. Stansbury disclosed on November 12, 2024 (both in the body of the Motion to Compel [ECF 58] and the attachment [ECF 58-3 at pp. 8-11]) should be excluded.”

“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Pay for Claim [ECF 58] be denied.”

“Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF 41] be GRANTED: 1) As to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim (Claim One) against Defendants Reed and Norris, this Court recommends that it be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2) As to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim (Claim One) against Defendants Long, Wallace, Weaver, and Quinlin, this Court recommends that it be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3) As to Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendant Long, this Court recommends that it be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4) As to Plaintiff's Official Capacity claims against Defendant Stancil, this Court recommends that they be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.”

“The magistrate judge recommends granting summary judgment on Claim 1 ... The magistrate judge also recommends granting summary judgment on Claim 2 ... the magistrate judge recommends denying summary judgment on Claim 3 ... The magistrate judge recommends entering summary judgment on Claim 4 because plaintiff fails to show an adverse employment action.”

“Judge O'Hara's Recommendation on the CDOC Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. 232] is ADOPTED; ... The CDOC Officials' Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 189] is GRANTED;”

“Judge O'Hara's Recommendation on the BCCF Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. 239] is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED; ... The BCCF Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 175] is GRANTED;”

“The Motion to Dismiss at ECF 46 be granted in part such that (1) the Third Claim for Relief (Deliberate Indifference/Failure to Protect) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Hartley, Fheure, Smith, and Ward. (2) the Fourth Claim for Relief (First Amendment Retaliation) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Maul, Gouty, Velasquez, and Goodsell. (3) the Fifth Claim for Relief (Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Maul, Gouty, Velasquez, and Goodsell ... (4) the Sixth Claim for Relief (ADA) and Seventh Claim for Relief (Rehabilitation Act) be dismissed to the extent Plaintiff claims intentional discrimination. The Motion to Dismiss at ECF 46 be denied in all other respects.”

“The Motion to Dismiss at ECF 78 be granted. As such, the Third Claim for Relief (Deliberate Indifference/Failure to Protect) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Churich and Mascarenas.”

“The Motion to Dismiss at ECF 94 be granted. As such, the Third Claim for Relief (Deliberate Indifference/Failure to Protect) be dismissed as brought against Defendants Eddy, Galkowski, and Montano.”

“1) As to Plaintiff's first claim against Defendants Roetker and Gutierrez, this Court recommends that Defendants' Motion is GRANTED and Count One of Plaintiff's TAC [ECF 51] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2) As to Plaintiff's first claim against Defendant Stice, this Court recommends that Defendants' Motion be DENIED due to Plaintiff's allegation of excessive force. 3) As to Plaintiff's second claim against all Defendants, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED and Count Two of Plaintiff's TAC will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

“For the reasons set forth above, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), the court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF 36] be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's FAC [ECF 7] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”