Havens v. Mills et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:24-cv-00244 Document 43 _ Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Page 1 of 3

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

| ENTERED

|

February 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00244

Vv.

SHERIFF BILL MILLS, et al.,

Orn Or (Or? (0? COD 40? CO?n COD COD

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 27). The M&R recommends that the Court:
e dismiss Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims without prejudice;
e retain Plaintiff’s individual-capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process claims
against Sheriff Mills, Chief Deputy Gutierrez, Deputy Chief Chapa, and Lieutenant
Martinez regarding their alleged collective decision to order Plaintiff ’s placement
into solitary confinement on November 13, 2022; and
e dismiss all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice as frivolous or for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. |
(D.E. 27, p. 67). Plaintiff and Defendants have both filed written objections. (D.E. 38); (D.E. 39).
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. § 63 6(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.).

1/3

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

|
|
|

Case 2:24-cv-00244 Document 43 Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

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, “[ffrivolous,
conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle i U.S. Parole
Cons ‘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 —— for clearly
erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to
expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 73 1-32 (5th 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. 38); (D.E. 39), and ADOPTS the findings and ©

conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 27). Accordingly, the Court:
e DISMISSES Plaintiff's official-capacity claims without prejudice; |
e RETAINS Plaintiff’s individual-capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process

claims against Sheriff Mills, Chief Deputy Gutierrez, Deputy Chief Chapa, and

' 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).

2/3

Case 2:24-cv-00244 Document 43 _ Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

|
|
|
|

Lieutenant Martinez regarding their alleged collective decision to order Plaintiff’s

placement into solitary confinement on November 13, 2022; and |

e DISMISSES all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice as frivolous or for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SO ORDERED. |
|

DAVIB.S MORALES |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
February 2:7~2026

3/3

mn