Havens v. Mills et al;

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00299
BILL MILLS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRTE JUDGE
On March 26, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (M&R, D.E. 118),
recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff timely filed
his objections (D.E. 121) under the prison mailbox rule on April 8, 2026.
This case has been pending since December 20, 2022. The basis for the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation of dismissal is that:
• Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendants’ discovery requests
propounded on November 7, 2025. See D.E. 113.
• Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ motion to deem admissions and
compel discovery responses. D.E. 113.
• Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order (D.E. 116)
issued on March 2, 2026, seeking an explanation for Plaintiff’s failures
to prosecute this action in good faith.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:22-cv-00299 Document 122 Filed 05/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
Plaintiff now responds in his unsworn objections with general excuses unsupported by
evidence. He complains as follows:
• The courts are unfair to him;
• The Court has denied him appointed counsel;
• The Court’s referral of his 12 cases to Magistrate Judges for pretrial
management has caused him unspecified harm and prejudice;
• TDCJ has moved him between facilities, moved him on bench warrants,
assigned him to segregated housing, and subjected him to excessive cell
searches, resulting in the temporary loss or disorganization of his legal
materials or permanent confiscation of some unspecified materials at
unspecified times;
• The Magistrate Judge does not grant him relief on his motions to compel
and the Magistrate Judges on all of his cases engage in discrimination
against him or play politics on his 12 cases to his detriment, resulting in
biased rulings;
• He is periodically prevented from sending mail, including legal
documents intended for this Court;
• He had a medical emergency on January 30, 2026, and was hospitalized
with serious conditions, some of which have affected his vision for an
unspecified period of time;
• TDCJ has denied him paper and pen to write his legal documents;
• The courts fail to apply the correct standard of review in summary
judgment motions and have denied him the ability to obtain discovery
from defendants;
• He has been in lockdowns or medical quarantines of unknown time or
duration affecting his ability to tend to his lawsuits and to physically place
mail in the prison mailbox;
• He is being denied access to courts because he does not get to attend the
law library, is not provided indigent supplies including postage, and
cannot mail his documents.
Case 2:22-cv-00299 Document 122 Filed 05/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
An objection must point out with particularity the alleged error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis. Otherwise, it does not constitute a proper objection and will not be
considered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir.
2003). Generally, a claim raised for the first time in objections to an M&R is not properly
before the district court and therefore is waived. United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626,
630 (5th Cir. 1992); see also, e.g., Place v. Thomas, No. 2-40923, 2003 WL 342287, at *1
(5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2003) (per curiam).
Plaintiff’s objections assert generalized facts that are not supported by evidence in
a document that is not signed under penalty of perjury. Consequently, the Court cannot
take any of the alleged facts as true. Plaintiff’s objections are also general complaints about
the administration of all 12 of his lawsuits, without distinction or specificity. Therefore,
they do not constitute valid objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation currently
under review.
Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel is not currently before the Court and must
be raised in a timely manner when denied in order to be the subject of an objection properly
brought to this Court. Likewise, his general claim to being denied access to the courts is
not the subject of the current M&R and is not a proper objection. Neither has he explained
how any of the litany of circumstances he recites specifically prevented him from
answering the discovery requests since they were propounded in November, prevented him
from responding to the motion to compel, and/or prevented him from responding to the
Show Cause Order (D.E. 116).
Case 2:22-cv-00299 Document 122 Filed 05/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
None of Plaintiff’s objections specifically address the reasoning of the M&R.
Moreover, they contain complaints raised for the first time in this Court when they should
have been raised in response to the Show Cause Order (D.E. 116). The objections are thus
waived. For these reasons, all of Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiff’s
objections, and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo
disposition of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation
to which objections were specifically directed, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s
objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Court further TERMINATES AS
MOOT all pending motions.
ORDERED on May 5, 2026.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-00299 Document 122 Filed 05/05/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4