McIlyar v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
WILLIAM KENT MCIL YAR,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
V. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00291
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R"). (D.E. 73). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Defendant's motion for summary
judgment, (D.E. 42), and dismiss Plaintiff's claims. (D.E. 73, p. 1).
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)(l)(C). A
party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge's analysis. Petko
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 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, "[f]rivolous,
conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Battle v. US. Parole
Comm 'n, 842 F.2d 419,421 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews 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
1/2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00291 Document 79 Filed 07/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

expeditiously adopt a magistrate's recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (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 Mgmt.,
Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court's two-sentence order adopting a
magistrate's recommendation for summary judgment). 1
After considering Plaintiffs objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 75), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the M&R. (D.E. 73). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary
judgment, (D.E. 42), and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims. The Court will enter a final judgment
separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
July l ",.lfc526
DAVID 	. 	RALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 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. 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).
2/2
Case 2:24-cv-00291 Document 79 Filed 07/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2