Dearson v. Mixon et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
BRANDON SCOTT DEARSON,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
V. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:26-CV-00029
MARK MIXON, eta!.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton's Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R"). (D.E. 15). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's
request for injunctive relief, and his municipal liability claim against Lavaca County. Id. at 15. The
M&R further recommends that the Court retain Plaintiffs excessive force claim against Officer
Mark Mixon in his individual capacity. 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)(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
1/2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 6:26-cv-00029 Document 28 Filed 07/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

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, 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. 23), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the M&R. (D.E. 15). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs request for
injunctive relief and his municipal liability claim against Lavaca County. The Court RETAINS
Plaintiffs excessive force claim against Officer Mixon in his individual capacity.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
July zr,~026
DA 	S. 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. 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 6:26-cv-00029 Document 28 Filed 07/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2