Garcia-Perez v. Masters et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
ABEL GARCIA-PEREZ, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:23-CV-00137
§
JAIME MASTERS, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the December 8, 2025, Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Nadia S. Medrano. (Dkt. No. 42). Judge Medrano
made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff Abel Garcia-Perez’s
Application to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (“Application”), (Dkt. No. 40), be
denied, (Dkt. No. 42).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). While somewhat unclear, Plaintiff Garcia-
Perez filed three objections on December 18, 2025. (Dkt. No. 43). First, he objects to Judge
Medrano’s application of when district courts can deny motions for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis under Champluvier v. Couch, 309 F. App’x 902, 903 (5th Cir. 2009). (Id. at
2). Garcia-Perez appears to imply that, unlike in Champluvier, the Court should not deny
his Application because his is based on nonfrivolous grounds. (Id.). Second, Garcia-Perez
objects to the R&R because he alleges that circumstances beyond his control during his
incarceration are the reasonable source of his delay or failure to respond to the Court,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:23-cv-00137 Document 44 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
including Judge Medrano’s R&R. (Id. at 2–3). Third, Garcia-Perez objects to Judge
Medrano’s finding that he has not requested an extension of time to respond to the R&R
and asserts that he has “indeed filed various requests for extension of [the] time limit to
respond.” (Id. at 4).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After
conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which
objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and
adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Magistrate Judge Medrano’s R&R, (Dkt. No. 42), is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal, (Dkt. No.
40), is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on January 8, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:23-cv-00137 Document 44 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2