Otero v. City of Rockport et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:25-cv-00246 Document 40 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Pagelof3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MATTHEW OTERO, §
Plaintiff,
Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00246
CITY OF ROCKPORT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 36). The M&R recommends the Court grant the City of
Rockport’s and the Aransas County Navigation District’s motions to dismiss, (D.E. 17); (D.E. 26),
and dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them for failure to state a claim. (D.E. 36, p. 1). The M&R
further recommends the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs related
state law claims. Id.

Plaintifftimely filed objections to the M&R. (D.E. 37). 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)(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.). Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in
the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. Edmond y, Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293

n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[fjrivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be

1/3

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 2:25-cv-00246 Document 40 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. 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
(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to
expeditiously adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32
(Sth 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 judge’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v.
Waste Mgmt., 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's objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 37), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the M&R. (D.E. 36). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the City’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 17),
and the Navigation District’s motion to dismiss. (D.E. 26). The Court DECLINES to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs related state law claims. The Court further DENIES
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend because it is clear that the amendment would be futile.
(D.E. 39); see also Johnson v. Harris Cnty., 83 F.4th 941, 947 (5th Cir. 2023).

The Court will enter a final judgment separately.

' 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).

2/3

Case 2:25-cv-00246 Document 40 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

SO ORDERED.

DAVID’S. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
July 27372026

3/3