UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

TRE'VON A. WOODARDS, 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-213-P 

v. 

APPLE, et al, 

Defendants. 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

March 9, 2022, Plaintiff prose Tre'Von A. Woodards ("Woodards") filed his Petition in 

a Tarrant County state court against a myriad of Defendants (collectively, "Defendants"). 1 The 

case was removed to this District [doc. I] on March 24, 2022, by Defendant United States 

Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and was referred to the undersigned the 

same day [ doc. 6]. 

Previously, on August 19, 2020, United States District Judge Reed O'Connor issued an 

Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, ordering the following: 

[Woodards] shall file no future civil action in this Court or continue any 

action that is removed to this Court unless he obtains leave from a judge of this 

Court to do so. [Woodards] shall attach a copy of this Order to any future filing 

requesting that a new case file be opened in this Court and to the first pleading 

that he files in any action removed to this Court. 

1 Woodards lists the following as Defendants: "Apple, Bandlab Technologies, Activision Blizzard Inc., 

Meta Platforms Inc., Instagram, Match Group Inc., Bigelow Management, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Federal 

Clerks, federal Judges (Northern District of Texas - Abilene Division/Fort Worth Division), Dallas Division 

Department of Public Safety, Board of Education, Health and Human Services, Denise Trauth, Texas State faculty, 

Courtney Waldron, Arlington Memorial, Hendrix Hospital, Abilene Regional, Christos Santa Rosa Hospital -- San 

Marcos, Laurel Ridge, Betty Hardwick, Euless Police, San Marcos Police, Texas State University Police, Hurst 

Police, Arlington Police, Dyes Air Force Base, Dallas Police, [and] Snap Inc." The Court notes that, as of the date 

of this Order, not all Defendants have returns on record shmving service of process. 

Case 4:22-cv-00213-P Document 27 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 278
Woodards v. Google, Corp., No. 4:20-cv-635-O, 2020 WL 4904735, at * 1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 

2020). In the instant case, Woodards wholly ignored the sanction bar placed upon him. When 

his state court petition was removed to this Court, he neither requested nor was granted leave of 

Court to continue the action. Woodards also failed to attach a copy of the order to his filings. As 

Woodards failed to comply with the sanction bar ordered by United States District Judge Reed 

O'Connor, all claims against each Defendant should be DISMISSED. 

RECOMMENDATION 

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 S(e), all 

claims in the above-styled and numbered cause against all named Defendants be DISMISSED, 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each party to this action has the right to serve and file 

specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate 

Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the 

party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only 

make a de nova determination of those portions of the United States Magistrale Judge's proposed 

findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a 

proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error 

or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto 

Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l) (extending time lo file objections to 14 days). 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00213-P Document 27 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 279
ORDER 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until May 24, 

2022, to serve and tile written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed 

findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed 

and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) 

days of the filing date of the objections. 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred 

to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and 

hereby is returned to the docket of United States District Judge Mark Pittman. 

SIGNED May 10, 2022. 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00213-P Document 27 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 280