Lopez v. Gonzalez et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 6:25-cv-00024 Document 41 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page1of2

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
June 24, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochener, Clerk

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

VICTORIA DIVISION
JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ, §
Plaintiff, :
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:25-CV-00024
LEE MICHAEL GONZALEZ, et ail.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation
(“M&R”). (D.E. 38). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment as to Defendant James Gonzalez for liability only and deny Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment as to Defendant Lee Michael Gonzalez. Id.

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 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. U.S. Parole
Comm’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 reviews for clearly

erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221

1/2

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 6:25-cv-00024 Document 41 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

(Sth 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 (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’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 Plaintiffs objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 40), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the M&R. (D.E. 38). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's
motion for default judgment. (D.E. 28). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment only as to the liability of Defendant James Gonzalez. The Court otherwise DENIES

Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. (D.E. 28), Plaintiff may file a motion for damages on or

before July 14, 2026, with supporting affidavits and other materials to establish the amount of

default judgment and any further injunctive relief. —— Poof}

SO ORDERED.

—

DAVID-S. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
June 2/3026

' 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