Chay Jr v. Montiel et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
EAZ CHAY, JR., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:23-CV-00206
§
JOSE MONTIEL, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the February 3, 2026, Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Nadia S. Medrano. (Dkt. No. 119). Although
several claims and defendants have already been dismissed from this case, what remains
are Plaintiff Eaz Chay, Jr.’s (“Chay Jr.”), excessive-force claims against City of Pharr
Police Department officers Jose Montiel and Edgar Hernandez that arise from Chay Jr.’s
arrest on June 26, 2021. (Id. at 1–2). Judge Medrano made findings and conclusions, (Dkt.
No. 119), and recommended that Defendants Jose Montiel and Edgar Hernandez’s
Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 104), be granted.
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the R&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Chay Jr., proceeding pro se, filed an
exhaustive1 list of objections on February 17, 2026. (Dkt. No. 121). These objections rest
1 Plaintiff’s objections span across 73 pages. (See Dkt. No. 121). Many of these objections
are conclusory allegations or bald assertions, (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 121 at 6, 10, 17, 50), or are
statements about alleged findings or conclusions that are outside the scope of those made by
Judge Medrano in her R&R, (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 121 at 4, 16).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:23-cv-00206 Document 122 Filed 02/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
on his repeated claim that the Defendants participated in a broader conspiracy2 against
him involving the “weaponization . . . of local governments influenced by the Democratic
Party.” (Dkt. No. 121 at 4). The Court collates Plaintiff’s list of objections into two general
categories: those objections that pertain to the nature of the 2021 arrest and those
objections that relate to events immediately preceding it.
First, Chay Jr. objects to Judge Medrano’s finding that he actively resisted arrest
during the recorded encounter, (id. at 4), and that Defendants did not use excessive force,
(id. at 7, 8). Chay Jr. argues that he was only “stumbling toward the ground after being
twisted and restrained and seized by Officer Montiel without [n]otice.” (Id. at 5). He
objects to Judge Medrano’s finding that there was no chokehold and alleges that
Defendant Montiel pulled Chay Jr. on his back, choked him, and intentionally obstructed
the body camera from viewing the alleged chokehold. (Id. at 10). Chay Jr. objects to Judge
Medrano’s finding that there was no evidence that Officer Montiel “pistol[-]whipp[ed]”
him, and he contends that Officer Montiel punched him five times in the face. (Id. at 7,
12). Chay Jr. also objects to Judge Medrano’s finding that he attempted to take Officer
Montiel’s weapon while resisting arrest, and he argues instead that it was the Defendants
who were creating the “state danger.” (Id. at 12-14). Chay Jr. further objects to Judge
Medrano’s finding that Officer Montiel warned Chay Jr. that he would “step it up” if he
continued to resist arrest. (Id. at 16).
2 Chay Jr. refers to the Defendants’ alleged conspiracy against him as “The Enterprise.”
(Dkt. No. 121 at 51–52).
Case 7:23-cv-00206 Document 122 Filed 02/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Second, Chay Jr. objects to Judge Medrano’s R&R finding that he performed
“donuts” in his vehicle near parked cars and bystanders, that he had been drinking or
smelled of alcohol, and that he engaged in any criminal activity when the Defendants
first encountered him immediately preceding the 2021 arrest. (Id. at 10, 14).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After
conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the R&R to which
objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the R&R and
adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Magistrate Judge Medrano’s R&R, (Dkt. No. 119), is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 104), is
GRANTED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on February 26, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:23-cv-00206 Document 122 Filed 02/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3