govinfo:USCOURTS-txwd-5_24-cv-01386-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
ESTATE OF DERRICK ELLISON, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-24-CA-1386-FB
§
COUNTY OF BEXAR, TEXAS SHERIFF §
JAVIER SALAZAR; DOES 1-50; BEXAR §
COUNTY HOSPITAL d/b/a University §
Health Systems; CORPORAL CARLOS §
MARROQUIN Badge #2033, Bexar §
County Sheriff’s Office, Bexar County Jail §
Unit Officer; SERGEANT FELIPE §
CADENA Badge #2750, Bexar County §
Sheriff’s Office, Bexar County Jail, Floor §
Sergeant; and LT. GABRIEL VILLARREAL, §
Badge #4431, Bexar County Sheriff’s §
Office, Bexar County Jail, Shift Commander, §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, filed
in the above-captioned cause on May 18, 2026. (ECF No. 84). To date, no objections to the Report and
Recommendation have been received.1 
Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court
need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations
to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its
 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing
a copy to the party’s last known address, “service is complete upon mailing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is by electronic means, “service is
complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). 

reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 84) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that the
Hospital’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Seventh Amended Complaint or in the Alternative 12(c)
Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED, the Officer Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Seventh Amended Complaint (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED, and the County’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Seventh Amended Complaint (ECF No. 71) is GRANTED IN PART and 
DENIED IN PART. The claims against the Hospital, Sheriff Salazar, the Officer Defendants, and the
Doe Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The claims against the County are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE, with the exception of Plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act discrimination
claims based on the County’s alleged failure to provide Mr. Ellison with antipsychotic medications and
therapy sessions. 
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 9th day of June, 2026. 
 _________________________________________________
 FRED BIERY
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 
.
 
2

Passage view · GavelSight