Damron v. Houston County, Texas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
TIMOTHY E. DAMRON,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
KRISTINA MASSEY, in her
individual and official capacity;
DWIGHT L. PHIFER, in his
individual and official capacity;
JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5; FEDERAL
CASE NO. SA-21-CA-0665-XR; and
CAUSE NO. 20-12-00335, named as
an administrative instrumentality,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:25-CV-00211-MJT
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE [Dkt. 16]
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to
United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this proceeding to the Honorable
Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter
findings of fact and recommend disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-
dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72.
On October 7, 2025, Judge Stetson recommended [Dkt. 16] denying as moot Plaintiff’s
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Injunctive Relief [Dkt. 2]. Plaintiff objected
to [Dkt. 23] and moved for de novo review of [Dkt. 24] Judge Stetson’s Report and
Recommendation.
Case 9:25-cv-00211-MJT-CLS Document 45 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. Plaintiff’s Motion for de novo Review
A ruling on a motion to dismiss is a “case-dispositive matter.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
A magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on a case-dispositive matter is subject to de novo
review whenever a party files specific objections to it. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Under Local Rule
CV-72(c), parties may file such objections, but “[n]o further briefing is allowed absent leave of
court.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for de novo Review of Judge Stetson’s Report and
Recommendation [Dkt. 24] is DENIED as improper.
II. Plaintiff’s Objections to Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff mailed 11 numbered pages as his objections, but objections are limited to eight (8)
pages. The Court strikes pages 9 through 11.1 Cf. E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-7(k). Plaintiff spends
much of his objections discussing this case in general, and how Judge Stetson did not discuss the
facts of the case in detail in her Report and Recommendation. However, many facts of this case
are irrelevant as it relates to Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 16], which
concerns only a very narrow part of this case—Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO and Injunctive Relief
[Dkt. 2], which Judge Stetson recommended denying as moot. Plaintiff does object to this finding
too [Dkt. 23 at 4–5], and thus this Court affords him de novo review of his Motion.
Plaintiff’s Motion sought (1) “[a] Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the [Texas state]
trial court from proceeding in [Criminal] Cause No. 20-12-00335 until resolution of Plaintiff’s
mandamus in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,” (2) “[a] Preliminary Injunction upon hearing
to maintain the status quo pending appellate resolution” of that mandamus petition, and (3) “[a]ny
additional or alternative relief the Court deems just and appropriate.” [Dkt. 2 at 3].
1 Page 9 is a certificate of service. Pages 10 and 11, though numbered by Plaintiff, are blank.
Case 9:25-cv-00211-MJT-CLS Document 45 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Judge Stetson located Plaintiff’s mandamus petition with the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals and took judicial notice of its status. [Dkt. 16 at 2 n.1]. This Court also takes judicial
notice of its status, and similarly finds that it was denied as August 6, 2025. See [id. (citing
https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=WR-95,065-02&coa=coscca)]. As such, Plaintiff’s first
and second requests for relief in his Motion [Dkt. 2] are moot. Regarding his third request, the
Court does not see what additional relief is warranted pertaining to Plaintiff’s Motion. The overall
relief he seeks in this case is not the subject of this order, and relief he did seek in his Motion
cannot be granted because his “mandamus petition filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in
Austin, Texas on July 14, 2025[,]” has been denied. [Dkt. 2 at 1].
III. Order
Plaintiff’s Motion for de novo Review [Dkt. 24] is DENIED as improper. Plaintiff’s
objections [Dkt. 23] are overruled. The Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 16] is ADOPTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 2] is DENIED as moot.
____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 1st day of December, 2025.
Case 9:25-cv-00211-MJT-CLS Document 45 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>