Goodson v. City of Dallas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MARTIN ONASSIS GOODSON, § § Plaintiff, § § v . § No. 3:25-cv-816-K (BT) § CITY OF DALLAS, et al. § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. The plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or injunction (ECF No. 8) and motion for a protective order (ECF No. 6) are DENIED. After filing these motions, the plaintiff filed a “Motion to Reassign Case to Article III District Judge and Objection to Magistrate Referral,” in which he objects to the referral of this case to the Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 14. That motion is DENIED, and to the extent it could be considered an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, it is OVERRULED. Referrals to United States Magistrate Judges are authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and are constitutional. See, e.g., Escudero v. Jordan, 2019 WL 4463265 , at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2019) (citing Bowman v. Bordenkircher, 522 F.2d 209 (4th Cir. 1975); Corbett v. United States, 2014 WL 1783599 (S.D.W. Va. May 5, 2014)). Plaintiff has not lost any right to have an Article HI Judge hear his case, as he can object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations or orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). SO ORDERED. Signed May 7", 2025. Yiuheade A tnheades __ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE