Moreno v. Randall

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
VICTOR MORENO,
Plaintiff,
v. 2:25-CV-012-Z-BR
DONNIE RANDALL, e¢ al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Before the Court are 1) the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) of
the United States Magistrate Judge to dismiss this case as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) (ECF No. 9); and 2) Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel (“Motion,”
ECF No. 11). An Objection to the FCR has been filed. ECF No. 10. After making an
independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiffs Objection and concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct. ECF No.
9. Moreover, the Court concludes that Plaintiff does not have a right to appointed counsel in
this case. It is therefore ORDERED that the FCR (ECF No. 9) is ADOPTED, the Motion
(ECF No. 11) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a
party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a pro se
prisoner’s objections are deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities. See Thompson v.
Rasberry, 993 F.2d 518, 515 (5th Cir. 1998). For timely objections, “[t]he district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
Case 2:25-cv-00012-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

objected to.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3). However, for objections that are not filed within the
fourteen-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs &
Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (5th Cir. 2020).
ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge filed this FCR on December 19, 2025. ECF No. 9. Plaintiffs
Objection was due fourteen days later on January 2, 2026. FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(2). While the
Court did not receive Plaintiffs Objection until January 7, 2026, Plaintiff says he wrote the
Objection on December 31, 2025. ECF No. 10. Giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, the
Court will assume Plaintiff also delivered the Objection to prison authorities on that date.
See Rasberry, 993 F.2d at 515. Thus, the Court will credit December 31, 2025 as the effective
filing date. Because Plaintiff's Objection was timely, this Court reviews de novo any part of
the Magistrate’s disposition “that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(8)
(emphasis added).
Plaintiff does not appear to make any specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
FCR. See generally ECF No. 10 (merely expressing a desire to “‘appeal’ this matter’).
Objections to the FCR must be “specific” and “put the district court on notice of the urged
error.” Williams v. K&B Equip. Co., 724 F.2d 508, 511 (5th Cir. 1984). Where a party objecting
to the FCR fails to assert specific objections, the district court need not consider frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th
Cir. 1987). Just so here. Because Plaintiffs statements fail to assert specific objections,
Plaintiffs Objection is OVERRULED.
Plaintiffs Objection also seems to request appointed counsel. ECF No. 10, 11. Buta
prisoner-plaintiff does not have a right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Wendell
Case 2:25-cv-00012-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 892 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[T]here is no automatic right to appointment of
counsel in a civil rights case.”). And the Court finds that this case does not present exceptional
circumstances that would nonetheless warrant appointment of counsel. Thus, Plaintiffs
Motion is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection and
concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct following de novo review. It is
therefore ORDERED that the FCR (ECF No. 9) is ADOPTED, the Motion (ECF No. 11) is
DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED. a
January 93 2026
MA’ EW J. KACSMARYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00012-Z-BR Document 12 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>