Kelly v. Hinijosa et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 6:25-cv-00077 Document18 ~ Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

VICTORIA DIVISION

JACOB KELLY, §
§

Plaintiff, §

§

V. §
§

OFFICER HINIJOSA, ef al., §
§

Defendants. §

Page 1 of 2

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
February 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:25-CV-00077

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and

Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 13). The M&R recommends that the Court:

e Dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's § 1983 claims;

¢ Decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims of

negligence, which should then be dismissed without prejudice; and

e Impose a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and instruct the Clerk to send notice

of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District

of Texas at Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov. /d. at 1--2.

The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate

Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Feb. R. Civ. P. 72(b}; General Order No. 2002-13. No

objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only

determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United

States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan

Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon,

J.) (citation omitted),

1/2

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 6:25-cv-00077 Document18- Filed 02/19/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings
of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous
or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 13). Accordingly, the Court:

e DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's § 1983 claims;

e DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims
of negligence and DISMISSES those claims without prejudice; and

e IMPOSES a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and instructs the Clerk to send
notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern

District of Texas at Three Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov.

The Court will enter a final judgment separately.

DAVILSS. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
February [4 , 2026

2/2