1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

KAREN KAY PHILLIPS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SMITH, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-293-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Karen Phillips filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

Before the Court is Defendants County of Smith, Philip Greanead, Johnathan 

Peters, Riley Rugg, and Larry Smith’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

Docket No. 15. On October 18, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that 

the Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss and administratively close this case 

pending resolution of Plaintiff’s state criminal case. Docket No. 21. No objections to 

the Report have been received. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Case 6:23-cv-00293-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 104
2 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, no party objected in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews 

the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the 

legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States 

v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) 

(holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard 

of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 21) as the findings of this Court and 

DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 15). 

It is further ORDERED that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED 

pending resolution of Plaintiff’s state criminal case, and any pending motion in this 

case is terminated pending its reopening. The administrative and statistical closing 

of the lawsuit shall not prejudice the rights of Plaintiff or Defendants to proceed with 

this cause at such time further proceedings are practicable and appropriate. 

Defendants, their agents, representatives, and employees are reminded of their 

obligation to preserve evidence, including electronic data, during the pendency of this 

suit. Further, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff notify this Court of the outcome of her 

Case 6:23-cv-00293-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 105
3 

criminal case and, if appropriate, move to reopen this case within fifteen days after 

receiving notice that her criminal case has been resolved. Further, the Court 

ORDERS Plaintiff to provide this Court with status updates regarding the progress 

of her criminal case every ninety days, beginning thirty days from entry of this order. 

Failure to comply with any requirement of this order may result in dismissal of the 

case. 

Case 6:23-cv-00293-JDK-JDL Document 22 Filed 11/06/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 106