Blackwood-Head v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ERICK SCOTT BLACKWOOD-HEAD, 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
V. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Julie 	K. 	Hampton's 	Memorandum 	and
Recommendation ("M&R" ). (D.E. 27). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiffs
second motion to reopen the case, (D.E. 22). (D .E. 27, p. 4). Plaintiff filed written objections. (D .E.
32 ; D.E. 33).
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. Pelko
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
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00121 Document 42 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

(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, 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. Wa s te 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. 32; D. E. 33), and ADOPTS the findings 	and
conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 27). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Rule 60(b) motion
to reopen the case, (D.E. 22).
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Corpus ChriEti , Texas
March 23 ~~ 026
DA 	.MORALES
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. Although the M&R is at the complaint-screening stage and
not summary judgment, the Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit's decis ion 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 2:25-cv-00121 Document 42 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2