govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-4_25-cv-04916-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
HOUSTON DIVISION 
 
AUSTIN TYLER LEWIS, 
  Plaintiff, 
 
 
 versus 
 
 
J. BALLARD, et al, 
  Defendants. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 
4:25-cv-04916 
 
 
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE 
 
ORDER ADOPTING  
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION  
Plaintiff Austin Tyler Lewis  proceeds here pro se. He 
filed this lawsuit, asserting claims against Defendants 
Harris County and various individual officers pursuant to 
42 USC §1983 for alleged retaliation and interference with 
newsgathering in violation of the First Amendment, 
unlawful detention and excessive force in violation of the 
Fourth Amendment, spoliation in violation of the Due 
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Monell 
liability. See Dkt 7 (amended complaint). The matter was 
referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. 
Dkt 4.  
Pending are motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Defendants Harris 
County, Harris County Attorney’s Office, and Harris 
County Juvenile Probation Office , Rafael Pruneda, 
Joscelyn Ballard, and Robert Valentine. Dkts 14 –17. 
Plaintiff didn’t respond. 
Judge Ho issued a Memorandum and Recommendation 
recommending that the motions be granted as unopposed 
because Plaintiff failed to respond. Dkt 33 at 1, citing Local 
Rule 7.4. For the avoidance of doubt, she also addressed the 
merits of the motions , concluding that  (i) Plaintiff’s First 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04916     Document 35     Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 3
2 
 
and Fourth Amendment claims are barred by the statu te 
of limitations , and (ii) his Fourteenth Amendment claim 
fails because he lacks a protected interest in accessing his 
arrest records.  Id at 6 –9. She further recommend ed sua 
sponte dismissal of claims against Precinct 7 and Deputy 
Glasgow, reasoning that the same deficiencies apply to 
those claims. Id at 10–12. 
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of 
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically 
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see 
also United States v Wilson , 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other 
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no 
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v 
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing 
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 
1415, 14 30 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) 
advisory committee note (1983). 
None of the parties filed objections. No  clear error 
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the 
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the 
applicable law. 
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the 
Magistrate Judge  is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and 
Order of this Court. Dkt 33. 
The initial motion  to dismiss  by Defendant Robert 
Valentine is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 6. 
The motion s by Defendants Harris County, Harris 
County Attorney’s Office, and Harris County Juvenile 
Probation Office , Rafael Pruneda, Jocelyn Ballard, and 
Robert Valentine to dismiss are GRANTED. Dkts 14, 15, 16 
& 17.  
All claims against those Defendants are DISMISSED 
WITH PREJUDICE. 
All claims against Deputy Glasgow and Harris County 
Constable Precinct 7 are also DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 
A final judgment will issue by separate order. 
 
Case 4:25-cv-04916     Document 35     Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
SO ORDERED. 
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas. 
 
 
      ___________________________ 
      Honorable Charles Eskridge 
      United States District Judge 
 
                                           
June 03, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-04916     Document 35     Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight