Magnuson v. Dewitt County et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 6:26-cv-00032 Document 43 Filed 07/28/26 in TXSD Page1of2

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
July 28, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

VICTORIA DIVISION
ROBERT JAMES MAGNUSON, §
Plaintiff,
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:26-CV-00032
DEWITT COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants. :

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation
(“M&R”). (D.E. 29). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to alter or
amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), (D.E. 26). (D.E. 29, p. 1).

Plaintiff timely filed objections to Judge Libby’s M&R. (D.E. 39). 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 (Sth 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).

1/2

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 6:26-cv-00032 Document 43 _ Filed 07/28/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

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
(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 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 Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 39), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the M&R. (D.E. 29). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (D.E. 26).

CL

DAVIB_.SPYMORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SO ORDERED.

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
July 277 2026

' 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