IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

WOODROW J. JONES, SR,

Plaintiff,

v. 

GRAPELAND INDEPENDENT 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et. al,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-00059-MJT-ZJH

JUDGE MICHAEL TRUNCALE

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

On March 22, 2023, the Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Zack 

Hawthorn for pretrial management. [Dkt. 1]. Pending before the Court are three motions to 

dismiss: (1) the school district defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 34]; (2) Grapeland Independent 

School District’s (“GISD”) Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 41]; and the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission and its employees’ (collectively, “EEOC defendants”) Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 66]. 

On February 16, 2024, Judge Hawthorn issued his Report and Recommendation, which 

recommends granting all three Motions to Dismiss. [Dkt. 74]. On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff 

Woodrow J. Jones, Sr. (“Jones”) filed his Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation. [Dkt. 75]. On March 1, 2024, the EEOC defendants filed a Response to 

Plaintiff’s Objections. [Dkt. 76]. On March 4, 2024, the school district defendants and GISD filed 

a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections. [Dkt. 78]. 

A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to 

which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). The 

Case 9:23-cv-00059-MJT-ZJH Document 80 Filed 03/21/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 828
2

Court has conducted a de novo review of Judge Hawthorn’s Report and Recommendation and has 

carefully considered Jones’s objections. The Court finds that Judge Hawthorn’s findings and 

conclusions of law are correct and that Jones’s objections are without merit. Jones does not 

specifically object to any of Judge Hawthorn’s findings or recommendations regarding whether he

pleaded sufficient facts to plausibly allege any of the claims in his Second Amended Complaint. 

Rather, Jones raises only a vague, general assertion that his Second Amended Complaint contains 

sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. [Dkt. 75 at 4]. This is not a 

specific objection to a particular finding in Judge Hawthorn’s Report and is accordingly overruled.

Additionally, Jones contends that he is entitled to a default judgment against the United 

States because the United States failed to timely answer or otherwise respond to Jones’ Second 

Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 75 at 2–3, ⁋ 2]. Specifically, Jones contends that he performed “due 

diligence” to perfect service on Andrea Parker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Merrick Garland, U.S. 

Attorney General. Id. at 5, ⁋ 7. Jones raises the same arguments regarding service of the United 

States in his two pending Motions for Default Judgment. [Dkt. 63 and 70]. While Jones’ 

arguments regarding a default judgment are irrelevant to Judge Hawthorn’s findings on the merits 

of the Defendants’ three Motions to Dismiss, the court will address the issue of default judgment 

here because Jones raised the issue in his Objections. 

Jones is not entitled to a default judgment against the United States because he still has not 

shown that he has properly served the United States. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(i)(1). Moreover, even 

if Jones properly served the United States, he is still not entitled to a default judgment because he

has not shown a right to relief on the merits of any of his claims. Rule 55(d) of the FED R. CIV. P.

provides that “[a] default judgment may be entered against the United States, its officers, or its 

agencies only if the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the 

Case 9:23-cv-00059-MJT-ZJH Document 80 Filed 03/21/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 829
3

court.” Additionally, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has “adopted a policy in favor of resolving 

cases on their merits and against the use of default judgments.” Wooten v. McDonald Transit 

Associates, Inc., 788 F.3d 490, 496 (5th Cir. 2015). In his Report and Recommendation, Judge 

Hawthorn addressed the merits of Jones’ claims and found that Jones failed to allege sufficient 

facts to suggest a reasonable possibility of recovery on any of his claims against the school district

defendants, GISD, or the EEOC defendants. [Dkt. 74 at 2]. The Court agrees with Judge 

Hawthorn’s findings. Furthermore, Jones has not specifically objected to any of Judge Hawthorn’s 

findings regarding the merits of his claims. Therefore, Jones has failed to establish a right to relief 

on any of his claims and thus fails to meet the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 55(d). Accordingly, 

Jones is not entitled to a default judgment against the United States.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff Woodrow J. Jones, Sr.’s Objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Dkt

75] are OVERRULED and Judge Hawthorn’s Report and Recommendation Granting Defendants’ 

Motions to Dismiss [Dkt. 34, 41, and 66] is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to 

Dismiss [Dkt. 34, 41, and 66] are GRANTED and Plaintiff Woodrow J. Jones, Sr.’s claims are 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Woodrow J. Jones, Sr.’s Motions for Default 

Judgment [Dkt. 63 and 70] are DENIED. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

The Court will enter a Final Judgment separately. 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 21st day of March, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00059-MJT-ZJH Document 80 Filed 03/21/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 830