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 Rusk County’s motion to dismiss for insufficient 

service of process and failure to state a claim. Docket No. 4. Defendant Rusk County 

has withdrawn its motion on the basis of insufficient service based on subsequent 

service. Docket No. 9 at 1. On February 2, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report 

recommending that the Court grant Rusk County’s motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim but allow Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to cure the deficiencies 

discussed in the report. Docket No. 16. No objections to the report have been filed. 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 17 Filed 02/27/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 92
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 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. 16) is ADOPTED. Defendant Rusk County’s motion to dismiss (Docket 

No. 4) is GRANTED. Further, Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended 

complaint addressing the deficiencies discussed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 by March 12, 2024. To the extent 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 17 Filed 02/27/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 93
3 

Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Defendants shall file a timely 

response in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

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 17 Filed 02/27/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 94