Manning Jr v. State Of Texas

- 1 -
No. 6:25-cv-00105
Author James Manning Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Texas,
Defendant.
O R D E R
Plaintiff filed this action claiming to appeal a state-court judg-
ment. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who
issued a report recommending that the court dismiss the action
with prejudice and bar plaintiff from filing any new lawsuits unless
the lawsuit is filed by a licensed attorney. Doc. 2 at 5. The report
explained that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to hear ap-
peals from state-court judgments even when the losing party al-
leges that the judgment violated the party’s federal rights, that the
complaint featured a “conclusory or speculative scenario,” and
that plaintiff has filed numerous frivolous lawsuits despite being
warned against doing so by this court. Id. at 2–5.
In response to the report, plaintiff filed what he captioned
“motion to reinstate, motion for reconsideration, objections.”
Doc. 5. In that filing, plaintiff states that he “provided relevant
subject matter in compliance with the rules of the federal court.”
Id. Plaintiff did not specify which portions of the report or specific
findings he objects to.
Ordinarily, the court reviews the objected-to portions of a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But “[p]arties fil-
ing objections must specifically identify those findings objected
to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be con-
sidered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404,
410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds
Case 6:25-cv-00105-JCB-KNM Document 9 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.
1996) (en banc). When there have been no timely objections to a
report, or the objections are improper, “the court need only sat-
isfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amend-
ment.
Because plaintiff’s objection is general and conclusory and
fails to identify which finding or portion of the report he objects
to, the court reviews the report for clear error. Having reviewed
the record and being satisfied that there is no clear error, the court
accepts the report’s findings and recommendation as to dismissal.
All claims in this matter are dismissed with prejudice. As to the
recommended sanctions, the court notes that a judge of this court
has already imposed such sanctions. See Manning v. Sony, 6:25-cv-
00101 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2025), Doc. 9. Any pending motions
are denied as moot.
So ordered by the court on January 7, 2026.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-00105-JCB-KNM Document 9 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>