Bordages v. State of Texas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
________________________________________________________________
JAMES HENRY HERBERT 	)
BORDAGES, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 25-cv-2550-TLP-tmp
)
STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF 	)
TENNESSEE, OTHER UNNAMED 	)
STATES, JOHN AND JANE DOES, 	)
GOVERNOR OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT, 	)
TEXAS BOARD OF PARDON AND 	)
PAROLES, TEXAS DEPARTMENT 	)
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 	)
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, HARRIS 	)
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 	)
OFFICE, ASSISTANT DISTRICT 	)
ATTORNEYS, and OTHER UNKNOWN 	)
DEFENDANTS, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
________________________________________________________________
Before the court is Plaintiff James Henry Herbert Bordages’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.1 (ECF No. 7.) A court may grant summary
judgment when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the 	nonmoving 	party, 	“there 	is 	no 	genuine 	dispute 	as 	to 	any
material fact” and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a
1Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this case has been
referred 	to 	the 	United 	States 	magistrate 	judge 	for 	management 	of
all 	pretrial 	matters 	for 	determination 	or 	report 	and
recommendation, as appropriate.
Case 2:25-cv-02550-TLP-tmp Document 24 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
<pageID>

- 2 -
matter 	of 	law.” 	Avantax 	Wealth 	Mgmt. 	v. 	Marriott 	Hotel 	Servs.,
Inc., 108 F.4th 407, 414 (6th Cir. 2024) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a); 	Huckaby 	v. 	Priest, 	636 	F.3d 	211, 	216 	(6th 	Cir. 	2011)). 	“A
genuine 	issue 	of 	material 	fact 	exists 	when 	there 	are 	‘disputes
over 	facts 	that 	might 	affect 	the 	outcome 	of 	the 	suit 	under 	the
governing law.’” Regions Bank v. Fletcher, 67 F.4th 797, 802 (6th
Cir. 	2023) 	(quoting 	Anderson 	v. 	Liberty 	Lobby, 	477 	U.S. 	242, 	248
(1986)). 	On 	August 	6, 	2025, 	the 	undersigned 	filed 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation, 	which 	recommended 	that 	the 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint
be 	dismissed. 	(ECF 	No. 	18.) 	For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	in 	that
Report 	and 	Recommendation, 	the 	undersigned 	recommends 	that
Bordages’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
January 7, 2026
Date
NOTICE
REPORT 	AND 	RECOMMENDED 	DISPOSITION, 	ANY 	PARTY 	MAY 	SERVE 	AND 	FILE
SPECIFIC 	WRITTEN 	OBJECTIONS 	TO 	THE 	PROPOSED 	FINDINGS 	AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. 	ANY 	PARTY 	MAY 	RESPOND 	TO 	ANOTHER 	PARTY’S
OBJECTIONS 	WITHIN 	FOURTEEN 	(14) 	DAYS 	AFTER 	BEING 	SERVED 	WITH 	A
COPY. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636(b)(1); 	FED. 	R. 	CIV. 	P. 	72(b)(2); 	L.R.
72.1(g)(2). 	FAILURE 	TO 	FILE 	OBJECTIONS 	WITHIN 	FOURTEEN 	(14) 	DAYS
MAY 	CONSTITUTE 	A 	WAIVER 	AND/OR 	FORFEITURE 	OF 	OBJECTIONS,
EXCEPTIONS, AND FURTHER APPEAL.
Case 2:25-cv-02550-TLP-tmp Document 24 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
<pageID>