1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

WENDY TIPPITT, individually and as 

the administrator of the Estate of 

Timothy Michael Randall, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SERGEANT SHANE IVERSON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-515-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Wendy Tippitt, individually and as administrator of the estate of 

Timothy Michael Randall, filed this civil action against Defendants Shane Iverson, 

Unknown Officer, and Rusk County. The case was referred to United States 

Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations for the disposition of the case. 

Before the Court is Defendant Shane Iverson’s motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim. Docket No. 11. On February 2, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report 

recommending that the Court grant Iverson’s motion with respect to Plaintiff’s claims 

for false detention but deny Iverson’s motion with respect to Plaintiff’s federal law 

claims for unlawful arrest and excessive force and Plaintiff’s state law claims for 

assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Docket No. 15. No 

objections to the report have been filed. 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 18 Filed 02/27/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 95
2 

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. 

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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 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, Plaintiff did not object 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, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

(Docket No. 15) is ADOPTED. Defendant Shane Iverson’s motion to dismiss (Docket 

No. 11) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims for unlawful detention and DENIED as 

to Plaintiffs federal law claims for unlawful arrest and excessive force, and Plaintiff’s 

state law claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 18 Filed 02/27/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 96
3 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27th February, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 18 Filed 02/27/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 97