Jason B. Libby

“the Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims of discrimination regarding race, national origin, color or ethnicity and is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claims of age discrimination.”

“Magistrate Judge Libby made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 12), be DENIED ... the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court ... (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 12), is DENIED [adopted Drew B. Tipton, 2023-07-04]”

“recommended that ... Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 16), be GRANTED ... (3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 16), is GRANTED. [adopted Drew B. Tipton, 2023-07-04]”

“the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court DENY Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment. (D.E. 27). ... Petitioner entirely fails to provide a sufficient reason for the untimeliness of his 2254 petition, raising the same arguments ... Petitioner has not shown exceptional circumstances justifying relief from judgment.”

Product-liability suit (allegedly defective remote-control-vehicle battery) against multiple manufacturers, distributors and a retailer (7-Eleven). Libby's M&R recommended DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Judge Tipton adopted it (sustaining two of 7-Eleven's objections to surplus dicta about the plaintiffs' partial-MSJ and the Texas saving statute, neither of which changed the recommendation) and dismissed the case. The disposition is a sua sponte jurisdictional dismissal, not a ruling on a party's motion. The recommendation states: 'This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.'

Pro se prisoner 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The complaint and amended complaint pleaded only conclusory facts; the plaintiff was ordered to file a More Definite Statement, was given an extension, and still failed to comply. Libby recommended DISMISSAL under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (failure to prosecute / comply with a court order; Martinez v. Johnson). This is a sua sponte case-management dismissal, not a party motion. The recommendation states: 'it is respectfully recommended that [the] case be DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).'

Pro se prisoner 1983 action dismissed for want of prosecution: the plaintiff never paid the filing fee or submitted an IFP application with a trust-fund statement despite two deficiency notices and deadlines. Libby recommended dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This is a sua sponte dismissal, not a party motion. The recommendation states: 'it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).' Together with Connelly, shows he enforces the More-Definite-Statement / IFP / fee requirements and will recommend 41(b) dismissal when a pro se prisoner does not comply.

“Defendant Morris’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED based on qualified immunity.”

“Claimants’ Renewed Motion to Dissolve the Limitation Injunction (D.E. 50) is GRANTED and Claimants may pursue their personal injury claims in state court.”

“the Court ... DENIES Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Joe Abrams, (D.E. 35)”

“the Court ... DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Plea to the Jurisdiction, (D.E. 47)”

“the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 20) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”

“the amended motion for summary judgment (D.E. 31) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Final judgment will be entered in favor of the individual Plaintiffs as to Count II of the Amended Complaint and this case is otherwise dismissed without prejudice.”

“The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and the above-entitled action is DISMISSED.”