Havens v. Chapa et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:24-cv-00105 Document119_ Filed on11/17/25in TXSD Page 1 of 3

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
November 17, 2025

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS, §
Plaintiff, :
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00105
AMANDO CHAPA, et al., :
Defendants. :

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 111). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, (D.E. 109), as to all claims except
“Plaintiff's due process claim alleging wrongful placement in indefinite solitary confinement upon
Plaintiffs return from Kleberg County, without prejudice to Deputy Chief Chapa’s later seeking
of qualified immunity upon submission of competent summary judgment evidence,” (D.E. 111, p.
49-50). Plaintiff filed a written objection to the M&R. (D.E. 118).

I. Legal Standard

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). 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). “A district court need not consider ‘[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.’” Gates

vy. Allstate Texas Lloyd’s, 267 F. Supp. 3d 861, 864 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (Martinez, J.) (alteration in

1/3

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 2:24-cv-00105 Document119_ Filed on11/17/25in TXSD Page 2 of 3

original) (quoting Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987)). If a party
generally objects to the M&R’s reliance on evidence, that is not sufficiently particularized for the
district court to consider. See, e.g., Garrett v. Sulser, No. 6:17cv310, 2020 WL 562804, at *2 (E.D.
Tex. Feb. 5, 2020) (Clark, J.) (finding party’s objection to the magistrate judge’s reliance on
“falsified and insufficient documentary evidence submitted by the Defendants” was not
sufficiently specific). Further, when a party raises a new argument in his objections that was not
first presented to the magistrate judge, it is not properly before the Court. United States v.
Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626, 630 (Sth Cir. 1992).
II. Analysis

Plaintiff's sole objection to the M&R is as follows: “Plaintiff completely objects to the
entire M&R based on fabricated evidence which written reports that are false and make false entry
into any record changes the face of this/any case triggering federal law violations of the 14th
Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 1819, 242, and civil conspiracy.” (D.E. 118, p. 1). Plaintiff's objection
to the M&R does not specifically identify the findings and recommendations he wishes to have
the Court consider. See id. Instead, Plaintiff generally objects to the M&R’s reliance on certain
evidence. /d. Standing alone, this generic and vague objection to the M&R is not a proper
objection. Sulser, 2020 WL 562804, at *2. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection.

Plaintiff further contends the Court must order Defendants to send Plaintiff their summary
judgment evidence. (D.E. 118, p. 1). This issue is raised for the first time in response to the M&R.

Id.' As such, it is not properly before the Court. Armstrong, 951 F.2d at 630. Therefore, to the

' Plaintiff argues his request for Defendants’ evidence “has already been brought to this Court’s attention
in another case[,] making this the third time thus far.” (D.E. 118, p. 1). Even if Plaintiff had made a similar
request in a different case, he has not raised this request before Judge Neurock in this case until now. Indeed,
Plaintiff had over two months from when Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 109)
(filed April 30, 2025), to when Judge Neurock issued the M&R, (D.E. 111) (entered July 10, 2025), to
2/3

Case 2:24-cv-00105 Document119_ Filed on11/17/25in TXSD Page 3 of 3

extent Plaintiff’s argument is an objection to the M&R, the Court OVERRULES it.

Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the
applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Plaintiffs
objection is directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection,
(D.E. 118), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 111). Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity as to
all claims except Plaintiff's due process claim alleging wrongful placement in indefinite solitary
confinement upon Plaintiff's return from Kleberg County, without prejudice to Deputy Chief
Chapa’s later seeking of qualified immunity upon submission of competent summary judgment

evidence. (D.E. 109).

oe q We

S. MORALES
ONE! TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas

November /94$2025

request Defendants’ summary judgment evidence in this matter.

as 3