Havens v. Mills et al

2:24-cv-00281Txsd02.02.2026

Gesamter Gesetzestext

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00281 Document 50 Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
Case 2:24-cv-00281 Document 50 Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:24-cv-00281 Document50- Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page1of2

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED

February 02, 2026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner Clerk

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS,
Plaintiff,
Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00281

SHERIFF BILL MILLS, et al.,

Defendants.

CO? LOR 40D COD COD COD COD (OD COD

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 35). The M&R recommends that the Court retain Plaintiff's
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Deputy Chief Chapa and Lieutenant Martinez
and strike any other construed claim contained in the amended complaint. /d. at 9. Plaintiff and
Defendants have both filed written objections. (D.E. 43); (D.E. 44).

When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the
district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko
v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.).
Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will
not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous,
conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole
Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly

1/2

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

Case 2:24-cv-00281 Document50- Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to
expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir.
1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving
it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a
magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Memt.,
Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a
magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).!

After considering Plaintiff and Defendants’ objections and reviewing the M&R de novo,
the Court OVERRULES the objections, (D.E. 43); (D.E. 44), and ADOPTS the findings and
conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 35). Accordingly, the Court RETAINS Plaintiff's Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process claim against Deputy Chief Chapa and Lieutenant Martinez and
STRIKES any other construed claim contained in the amended complaint.

SO ORDERED.

7 Z.
DAVID SNMORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
February @*", 2026

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a
summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the
recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. Although one of the instant M&Rs is at the complaint-
screening stage and not summary judgment, the Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s
decision apply with equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before
the court issued its order”; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the
magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court
had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted).

202

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.