2:24-cv-00281•Havens v. Mills et al
Texte intégral
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED February 02, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk Case 2:24-cv-00281 Document 50 Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
Case 2:24-cv-00281 Document 50 Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
Case 2:24-cv-00281 Document50- Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page1of2 United States District Court Southem District of Texas ENTERED February 02, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS, Plaintiff, Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00281 SHERIFF BILL MILLS, et al., Defendants. CO? LOR 40D COD COD COD COD (OD COD ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 35). The M&R recommends that the Court retain Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Deputy Chief Chapa and Lieutenant Martinez and strike any other construed claim contained in the amended complaint. /d. at 9. Plaintiff and Defendants have both filed written objections. (D.E. 43); (D.E. 44). 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 (Sth Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly 1/2 AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO Case 2:24-cv-00281 Document50- Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 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 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 Memt., 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 and Defendants’ objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court OVERRULES the objections, (D.E. 43); (D.E. 44), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 35). Accordingly, the Court RETAINS Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Deputy Chief Chapa and Lieutenant Martinez and STRIKES any other construed claim contained in the amended complaint. SO ORDERED. 7 Z. DAVID SNMORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas February @*", 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. Although one of the instant M&Rs is at the complaint- screening stage and not summary judgment, 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). 202
Vous vous demandez comment ce texte s’applique à votre situation ?
Consultation gratuite, sans engagement
Décrivez votre situation. Notre équipe vous recontactera par e-mail pour votre consultation.
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.