Holbert v. Hillhouse et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DALE SCOTT HOLBERT,
#02576254,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOTTIE HILLHOUSE, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-268-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, 	now 	an 	inmate 	of 	the 	Texas 	Department 	of 	Criminal 	Justice
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil lawsuit for alleged violations
of his constitutional rights during a previous stay in the Henderson County Jail. 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.
On October 1, 2025, Judge Love entered a Report and Recommendation that
this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2). 	Docket No. 11. 	After the Court
granted Plaintiff an extension of time to object to the Report, Plaintiff submitted a
letter that the Court liberally construes to be his written objections. 	Docket
Nos. 17, 19.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire
Case 6:25-cv-00268-JDK-JDL Document 20 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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).
A party objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report must specifically identify
those findings to which he objects. Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need
not be considered by the District Judge. See Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 410
& n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Furthermore, objections that simply rehash or mirror
the underlying claims addressed in the Report are not sufficient to entitle the party
to de novo review. See U.S. v. Morales, 947 F.Supp.2d 166, 171 (D.P.R. 2013) (“Even
though timely objections to a report and recommendation entitle the objecting party
to de novo review of the findings, ‘the district court should be spared the chore of
traversing ground already plowed by the Magistrate.’”) (internal citations omitted);
see also Vega v. Artuz, 2002 WL 31174466 *1 (S.D. NY Sep. 2002) (unpublished)
(“However, objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to
engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the
original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the magistrate judge’s
recommendations.”).
Judge Love recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims because Plaintiff
failed 	to 	allege 	any 	facts 	that 	would 	establish 	that 	any 	defendant 	has 	been
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Docket No. 11 at 5–9. Plaintiff’s
objections do not identify any error in the Report. 	To the contrary, the objections
Case 6:25-cv-00268-JDK-JDL Document 20 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
acknowledge the factual timeline recounted by the Judge Love and further confirm
that Plaintiff ultimately had an MRI on his shoulder in August 2025, “about two
months after [his] injury.” Docket No. 19 at 1. For the reasons explained by Judge
Love and uncontradicted by Plaintiff, that delay does not establish deliberate
indifference. See Docket No. 11 at 8. Further, Plaintiff still does not identify any
necessary treatment that has been withheld or otherwise allege facts that would
prove that any defendant knew of and disregarded any serious medical need.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the
Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly,
the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (Docket No. 19) and ADOPTS the
Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) as the opinion of the District Court.
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21st	January, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00268-JDK-JDL Document 20 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>