Austin Lawyers Guild et al v. Securus, TX, Order, illegal telephone recording, 2015
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Case 1:14-cv-00366-LY Document 62 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 3 J4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2015HAR23 -fl P11 AUSTIN DIVISION AUSTIN LAWYERS GUILD, CARL GOSSETT, DAVID GRASSBAUGH, MARK SAMPSON, FRANCIS WILLIAMS, AND THE PRISON JUSTICE LEAGUE, PLAINTIFFS, § § § § § § § V. § CAUSE NO. 1:14-C V-366-LY § SECURUS TECWNOLOGIES, INC., TRAVIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SHERIFF GREG HAMILTON (IN HIS OFFIC1AL CAPACITY), TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY ROSEMARY LEHMBERG (IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY), TRAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND COUNTY ATTORNEY DAVID ESCAMILLA (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY), DEFENDANTS. § § § § § § § § § § § § § ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the court in the above-styled and numbered cause are Defendants Hamilton, Lehmberg and Escamilla' s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 1 2(b)( 1), Rule 1 2(b)(6) filed August 6, 2014 (Clerk's Doc. No. 27); Defendants Travis County Sheriffs Office, Travis County District Attorney's Office, and Travis County Attorney's Office's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) filed August 6, 2014 (Clerk's Doc. No. 28); Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed August 6, 2014 (Clerk's Doc. No. 29); Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Renewed Motions to Dismiss filed September 5, 2014 (Clerk's Doe. No. 34); Reply Brief in Support of Defendant Securus 1:53 Case 1:14-cv-00366-LY Document 62 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 3 Technologies, Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed September 26, 2014 (Clerk's Doc. No. 36); and Travis County Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Renewed Motions to Dismiss filed September 26, 2014 (Clerk's Doc. No. 38). The above-listed motions were referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, as amended. The magistrate judge filed his Report and Recommendation on February 4, 2015 (Clerk's Doe. No, 52), recommending that this court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation, and thereby secure a de novo review by the District Court. A party's failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a Report and Recommendation bars that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc. and the Travis County Defendants timely filed objections on February 18, 2015 (Clerk's Doe. Nos. 55 and 56), to which Plaintiffs responded (Clerk's Doe. No.61). In light of Defendants' objections, the court has undertaken a de novo review of the entire case file in this cause. The court, having carefully reviewed the objections, motions, Case 1:14-cv-00366-LY Document 62 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 3 responses, replies, and entire record in the cause, and finding no error, accepts and adopts the report and recommendation as filed for substantially the reasons articulated therein. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the objections contained in Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed February 18, 2015 (Clerk's Doc. Nos. 55 and 56) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Clerk's Doc. No. 52) filed in this cause is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by the court. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendants Hamilton, Lehmberg and Escamilla's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6) (Clerk's Doc. No. 27), Defendants Travis County Sheriff's Office, Travis County District Attorney's Office, and Travis County Attorney's Office's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) (Clerk's Doc. No. 28), and Defendant Securus Technologies, Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Clerk's Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED to the following extent: (1) Defendants Travis County Sheriffs Office, Travis County District Attorney's Office, and Travis County Attorney's Office are DISMISSED as defendants from this action, and (2) Plaintiffs claim for violation of the right to access the courts under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In all other respects, the motions are DENIED. SIGNED this day of March, 2015. LEEJYEAKEL UNIITED STAT S DIST ICT JUDGE