IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

EDWARD LEE GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK H. MCDONALD and 

ANTHONY GRANTHAM,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-227-MJT-CLS

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING

THE PARTIES’ OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [Dkt. 121]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the District Court referred this proceeding to the Honorable 

Christine L. Stetson to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend 

disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72. 

On June 12, 2024, Judge Stetson issued a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 121] with the 

following conclusions and recommendations: (1) Mr. Gonzales did not plead any First, Fifth, 

Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments claims against Defendant Grantham, (2) Mr. Gonzales failed 

to state a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim against Defendant Grantham, and any 

such claim should be dismissed with prejudice, (3) Mr. Gonzales states a claim under §1983 for 

excessive force against Defendant Grantham in his individual capacity, (4) Defendant Grantham

is not entitled to qualified immunity from the excessive force claim at the 12(b)(6) stage, and (5) 

there are no live claims by former Plaintiff Michele Renee Gonzales. Defendant Grantham filed 

timely objections [Dkt. 124] contesting Defendant Grantham’s role in Plaintiff’s alleged injuries 

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 132 Filed 07/16/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2290
2

and reasserting qualified immunity. Plaintiff also filed objections [Dkt. 127] largely retelling his 

version or events and asserting he was unconstitutionally arrested.

I. The Parties’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation are Overruled

A. Legal Standard

A party who timely files specific, 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)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). To 

be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection 

is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. 

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles 

v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

B. Plaintiff’s Objections

Plaintiff’s objections are not specific but rather retell Plaintiff’s version of events. He also 

relitigates claims against previously dismissed defendants and again argues that Judge Stetson 

should recuse herself, a claim the Court has already addressed [Dkts. 63, 71 at 3-4, 72, 94 at 2]. 

Nowhere in the objections does Plaintiff address Judge Stetson’s legal analysis of Defendant 

Grantham’s motion. Construed broadly, Plaintiff’s main objection appears to be with the 

recommended dismissal of his apparent Fourth Amendment claim for an unconstitutional seizure. 

He claims that upon his return to Emergency Medical Center to retrieve his belongings, a staff 

member the police on a “Non-Emergency line” to “Induce Emergency Response” [Dkt. 127 at 4]. 

The motive of an Emergency Medical Center staff member does not, however, change the fact that 

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 132 Filed 07/16/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2291
3

police were called on Mr. Gonzales twice in one night at the same location. After de novo review 

of the record, the court agrees with Judge Stetson that Defendant Grantham had probable cause to 

physically seize Mr. Gonzales. This objection is overruled.

A. Defendant’s Objections

Defendant objects to Judge Stetson’s recommended denial of the motion as to Plaintiff’s 

excessive force claim. Specifically, Defendant contends Judge Stetson1erred by (1) not parsing 

out what part of Plaintiff’s body Defendant Grantham touched, (2) finding Plaintiff was 

cooperating with Defendant Grantham at the time of seizure, and (3) denying, for now, qualified 

immunity for Defendant Grantham. 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and will address the first two 

objections together. Based on the video evidence incorporated with the complaint and included 

with Defendant Grantham’s objections, the Court notes that Plaintiff and Defendant Grantham 

were having a relatively polite conversation about why the officers wanted Plaintiff’s ID moments 

before Plaintiff was pulled from the car. Likewise, less than two minutes passed between the 

officers approaching the vehicle and Mr. Gonzales’ arrest, suggesting Plaintiff’s relatively 

cooperative conversation with Defendant Grantham was potentially cut short. The Court also 

finds, based on the video footage that it is possible Defendant Grantham’s role in the seizure could 

have contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. After de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge 

Stetson’s findings.

As for Defendant Grantham’s assertion of qualified immunity, the Court agrees with Judge 

Stetson that this motion to dismiss does not sufficiently allow the court to analyze the issue. 

1 Throughout his objections, Defendant Grantham refers to Judge Stetson as “the Magistrate.” There are no 

“magistrates” in federal court, but instead “magistrate judges” who are referred to as “Judge.”. See generally Bird v. 

Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Agency, No. 4:20-CV-275, 2022 WL 90515, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2022).

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 132 Filed 07/16/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2292
4

Qualified immunity, however, must be addressed first and resolved before the Court may address 

the merits of the underlying claim. Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624, 630 (5th Cir. 2012)

(citing Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, 564 F.3d 379, 382 (5th Cir.2009)). Now that Plaintiff’s 

operative claim against Defendant Grantham is clarified, the Court finds it appropriate for 

Defendant Grantham to raise the issue of qualified immunity in a dispositive motion tailored to 

the excessive force claim as did Defendant McDonald [Dkt. 104]. The Court, therefore, denies the 

instant motion as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Grantham.

II. Conclusion and Order

The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s and Defendant Grantham’s

objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After 

careful consideration, Defendant Grantham’s objections [Dkt. 124] and Plaintiff’s objections [Dkt. 

127] are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 

[Dkt. 121] is ADOPTED. Defendant Grantham’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 108] is DENIED as to 

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against him and GRANTED as to all other claims. Defendant 

Grantham may raise the issue of qualified immunity again in an appropriate motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 16th day of July, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 132 Filed 07/16/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2293