Salinas v. Ramirez et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:24-cv-00168 Document105_ Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page1of2
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas

ENTERED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 26, 2026
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ROBERTO SALINAS,
Plaintiff,

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-000168

ROMEO R. RAMIREZ, et al.,

Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 90). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's
motion for leave to late-file a notice of appeal. /d. at 3. Plaintiff filed written objections. (D.E. 92).

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). A
party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko
v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.).
Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will
not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous,
conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole
Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

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). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to

1/2

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 2:24-cv-00168 Document105_ Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir.
1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving
it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a
magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt.,
Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a
magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment). !

After considering Plaintiff's objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 92), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the M&R. (D.E. 90). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to late-file a
notice of appeal. (D.E. 84).

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the
address on file by certified mail with return receipt requested.

SO ORDERED.

DAVID S. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
June 26, 2026

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a
summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the
recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. The Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth
Circuit’s decision apply with equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20
days before the court issued its order”; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3)
“the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district
court had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted).

Li 2