David L. Horan

“On July 13, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered findings of fact and conclusions and law recommending that the Court grant Defendant David Blankenship's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity ... the Court GRANTS Defendant David Blankenship's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity [Dkt. No. 279]”

“the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [Dkt. No. 302] to the extent that the Court VACATES its prior dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Jacob Aguilar and Ivan Alvarado ... and now DISMISSES those claims WITH PREJUDICE because Plaintiff has not shown that Bivens ... should be extended”

“Judge Horan recommended dismissal with prejudice, apparently because the complaint had been amended once but also because amendment could not cure the defect as a matter of law. ... The Court grants the Motion to Dismiss, denies as futile the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint”

“the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted ... the Court OVERRULES Defendants' Objections [Dkt. No. 38] and DENIES Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Motion for a More Definite Statement [Dkt. No. 27].”

“DENIES Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Motion for a More Definite Statement [Dkt. No. 27].”

Horan's FCR arose from screening under 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and a standing order of reference from District Judge Sam A. Lindsay. The pro se employment-discrimination plaintiff failed to file complete verified responses to the court's screening questionnaire by the extended and expressly warned deadline. Horan recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) and concluded lesser sanctions would be futile, carefully reciting the Long and Nottingham standard that dismissal with prejudice requires a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. The recommendation illustrates his pro se screening practice.

“The Court should grant Defendant Victoria C. Kundert a/k/a VikkiVerse’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 53] to the extent that the Court should dismiss the claims against her without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.”

“and enter judgment dismissing Chapman’s claims under federal law and the Texas Constitution with prejudice and dismissing any remaining claims under Texas common law without prejudice to Chapman’s ability to pursue those claims in state court.”

“The Court should grant Defendant Deutsch Bank National Trust Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt.l No. 17] and dismiss with prejudice MRK2 Brokerage, LLC’s claim for equitable redemption.”

“The Court should deny the motion for a preliminary injunction, dismiss all claims arising under federal law with prejudice, and relinquish jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim, dismissing that claim without prejudice, to allow Plaintiff Joseph Stanley Trotter IV to pursue it in a state forum if he so chooses.”

“The Court DENIES Carter’s motion for the following reasons.”

“The Court should grant the motions to dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 4 & 9], deny the motion for leave to amend [Dkt. No. 40], and, unless Plaintiff Tariq Farooq shows through timely objections a basis to amend to allege a plausible claim, the Court should dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice.”

“The Court therefore DENIES LQF’s motion to amend the scheduling order [Dkt. No. 22].”

“the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant H&R Block Enterprises LLC’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) for Failure to Comply with Court Order [Dkt. No. 38].”