1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

JACK BUTLER, Trustee for the 

MARY BUTLER IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST,

Plaintiff,

v. 

PATRICK K. WOODS, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00942-

SDJ-AGD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), this Motion having been referred to the 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 3, 2024, the Report of 

the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #43), was entered containing proposed findings of fact 

and recommendation that Defendant Bench’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #9), Defendant 

Woods’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #14), Defendant Landrum’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 

#16), and Defendant Lane’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #23) each be granted based on 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The 

Magistrate Judge further recommended that Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike (Dkt. #12; 

Dkt. #20; Dkt. #25; Dkt. #26; Dkt. #27) be denied. The Magistrate Judge further

recommended that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with prejudice.

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommended the dismissal of Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants Woods, Landrum, and Lane for lack of subject-matter 

Case 4:23-cv-00942-SDJ-AGD Document 49 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 284
2

jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (“TIA”), and 

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Magistrate Judge also 

recommended the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bench pursuant 

to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Report finds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the TIA, an argument 

that was not raised by Defendant Bench. Regardless, the TIA applies equally to all 

Defendants. Because it does, “it necessarily follows” that if the TIA divests the Court 

of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against Woods, Landrum, and 

Lane, the TIA also divests the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendant Bench. See Akula v. Cassidy, No. CV 23-1057, 2024 WL 

1556534, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 10, 2024).

“A court may sua sponte dismiss on its own . . . motion . . . as long as the plaintiff 

has notice and an opportunity to respond.” Thomas v. State, 294 F. Supp. 3d 576, 619 

(N.D. Tex. 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:17-CV-0348-N-BH, 2018 

WL 1254926 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (citing Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177 

(5th Cir. 2006) (remaining citation omitted). “Plaintiff receives notice and an 

opportunity to respond based on ‘[t]he fourteen-day time frame for filing objections to 

a recommended dismissal....’” Id. (citing Fantroy v. First Fin. Bank. N.A., 2012 WL 

6764551, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2012) (citing Ratcliff v. Coker, No. 9:08cv127, 2008 

WL 4500321, at *3 n.1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2008))).

Case 4:23-cv-00942-SDJ-AGD Document 49 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 285
3

On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Recusal of Magistrate Judge, 

which the Court construes as timely objections to the Report (Dkt. #44). Then, on 

September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Response to Report and Recommendation, which 

the court construes as timely supplemental objections (Dkt. #46). The Court has 

conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. #44; Dkt. #46) and the 

portions of the Report to which Plaintiff specifically objects. Having done so, the Court 

is of the opinion that the findings of the Magistrate Judge concerning Woods, 

Landrum, and Lane’s Motions to Dismiss are correct and adopts the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report with respect to these motions as the findings of the Court. With 

respect to Defendant Bench, the Court declines to adopt the Report. Rather, the Court

sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bench for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to the TIA and Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

In his objections, Plaintiff merely recited the claims raised in his complaint. 

Plaintiff did not address the application of the TIA. Because the Report provided 

Plaintiff with notice that his claims are barred by the TIA, and because Plaintiff did 

not object to the application of the TIA, the Court sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendant Bench for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 

the TIA and Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Woods’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 

#14), Defendant Landrum’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #16), and Defendant Lane’s 

Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #23) are GRANTED based on Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 4:23-cv-00942-SDJ-AGD Document 49 Filed 09/24/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 286
4

Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED

that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Bench are dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to the TIA and the Court’s sua sponte application of Rule 

12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike (Dkt. #12; Dkt. #20; 

Dkt. #25; Dkt. #26; Dkt. #27) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 

case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that any request for relief not addressed by the Report 

(Dkt. #43) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Case 4:23-cv-00942-SDJ-AGD Document 49 Filed 09/24/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 287