Johnson v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- 1 -
No. 6:25-cv-00355
R. Wayne Johnson,
Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America,
Defendant.
O R D E R
Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, sued the U.S. Postmaster and
Molly Francis, a U.S. Postal Service employee, in state court.
Doc. 1-3. He alleges that they mishandled prisoner mail by giving
that mail to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to process
and deliver to inmates. Id. The United States removed. Doc. 1.
The court referred the case to a magistrate judge, who issued
a report recommending that this case be dismissed with prejudice
as malicious and as filed in contravention of sanctions. Doc. 6 at
3. According to the report, plaintiff previously filed four other
lawsuits which appear to raise the same allegations. Id. at 1. Plain-
tiff has also been declared a “vexatious litigant.” Id. at 2 n.1. The
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas sanctioned
plaintiff by prohibiting him from filing new civil actions unless he
obtains leave of court. See Johnson v. U.S. Marine Corps., No. 2:13-
cv-00066, 2013 WL 3652377, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2013). That
order, the report notes, extends to removed or transferred actions.
See Doc. 6 at 2. The report further observed that nothing indicates
that plaintiff obtained permission to file in state court. Id.
Plaintiff did not file written objections. Rather, within the time
for filing objections, plaintiff filed what appears to be a motion to
remand to state court. Doc. 7. Plaintiff seems to argue that this
court lacks jurisdiction for various reasons. The court construes
that filing as plaintiff’s objections to the report.
Case 6:25-cv-00355-JCB-JDL Document 10 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
Ordinarily, the court reviews the objected-to portions of a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “[p]art-
ies filing objections must specifically identify those findings ob-
jected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be
considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d
404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other
grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc). When the objections are improper, “the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes
to 1983 amendment.
Plaintiff’s objections fail to engage with the report’s reasoning
and do not show why he should be permitted to maintain this law-
suit. Nor does plaintiff show that this court lacks jurisdiction to
dismiss his lawsuit as malicious and in contravention of sanctions.
Therefore, his objections are overruled as improper.
Having reviewed the record and being satisfied that there is no
clear error, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommen-
dations. This lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice as malicious and
as filed in contravention of sanctions. Plaintiff is warned that if he
persists in filing lawsuits without obtaining permission, additional
sanctions, including but not limited to monetary sanctions, may
be imposed.
So ordered by the court on January 9, 2026.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-00355-JCB-JDL Document 10 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>