Reported / Citable
Background
Krista Timika Walker, proceeding pro se, sued the City of Allen and several individual defendants. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Eastern District of Texas general order governing pretrial matters in pro se non-prisoner cases.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the claims against Magistrate Michelle Montemayor and Prosecutor Lakesha Burks with prejudice, dismissing the claims against Leslie Underwood without prejudice, and issuing service on the remaining defendants if the district court adopted the recommendation. Walker filed untimely objections, including an objection that she had not consented to consideration of her case by a magistrate judge.
The Court’s Holding
Because Walker was proceeding pro se, the court conducted a de novo review of her objections despite their untimeliness. It found the magistrate judge’s findings correct and adopted the report and recommendation as the court’s findings.
The court ruled that Walker’s lack of consent did not affect the referral because the case remained assigned to the district judge and only pretrial matters had been referred to the magistrate judge under the applicable general order. It dismissed the case with prejudice as to Montemayor and Burks and without prejudice as to Underwood. It ordered Walker to prepare service materials for the City of Allen, Peace Officer A. Winter, and Peace Officer R. Spradling within 30 days after receiving the order; after the clerk issues process, the U.S. Marshal must serve those defendants within 30 days after receiving the completed process from the clerk.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se plaintiff’s lack of consent did not prevent referral of pretrial matters to a magistrate judge under the district’s general order.
- The court reviewed Walker’s objections de novo despite their untimeliness and adopted the magistrate judge’s report.
- The dismissal ended the claims against three defendants but left claims against the City of Allen and two peace officers to proceed to service.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the distinction between referring pretrial matters to a magistrate judge and assigning the case itself to that judge: the district judge retained the case and made the dispositive ruling. It also produces a mixed disposition, with some claims dismissed permanently, one dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining defendants proceeding to service.