Liker v. Texas Board of Law Examiners ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION ANTHONY WADE LIKER, ESQ.; § , § § MO:23-CV-00034-DC v. § § TEXAS BOARD OF LAW § EXAMINERS, A DIVISION OF § THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, A § POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF § THE STATE OF TEXAS; PANEL § CHAIR FOR TBLE ALFRED § MACKENZIE, TBLE PANEL § MEMBER ANNA MCKIM, TBLE § PANEL MEMBER DWAINE § MASSEY, TBLE LEGAL § ASSISTANT CHRISTOPHER § COPELAND, STAFF ATTORNEY § ERIC HSU, JOHN DOES, § . § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BEFORE THE COURT is United States Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed in the above-captioned cause on June 27, 2023, in connection with Defendant Texas Board of Law Examiners’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 13) This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge.1 Neither party filed objections, and the deadline to do so has expired. Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendations.2 Failure to file written objections to the R&R within 14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from de novo review by 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations.? What’s more, except upon grounds of plain error, it shall also bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court to which no objections were filed.4 Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation that Plaintiff be given leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff has, however, already filed an amended complaint without the Court’s leave. (Doc. 16). The Court will consider Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as responsive to this Order because of Plaintiffs pro se status and lack of objections to giving him leave to amend.° It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED as MOOT. (Doc. 6). Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint will be 21 days from the entry of this Order. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 20th day of July, 2023. | | AVID COUNTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 Id. 4 Id, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); United States v. Wilson, 864 P.2d 1219 6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). > Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has proudly attached the honorific “Esq.” to his name and provided a Nevada bar number on his original complaint. Thus, the Court cautions Plaintiff that an “Esq.” suing for admission to another state’s bar should be able to follow the local rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedute.