Avila v. Placido et al

ISRAEL AVILA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00065
§
SAMINIEGO JR. PLACIDO, et al. , 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
§
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R"). (D.E. 9). The M&R recommends that the Court retain Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment
failure to protect claim against Major Aaron M. Cavazos in his individual capacity. Id. at 1. The
M&R further recommends that the Court dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs claims for money
damages against all Defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment
and dismiss with prejudice Plaintiffs remaining claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915(A)(b)(l). Id.
Plaintiff filed objections to Judge Libby's M&R on June 18 , 2026. (D.E. 19). 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)(l)(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
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00065 Document 20 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

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 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, "[f]rivolous, conclusive or
general objections need not be considered by the district court." Battle v. US. 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
(5th Cir. 	1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to
expeditiously adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731 - 32
(5th 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 judge's recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v.
Waste Mgmt. , Inc., 363 F. 3d 378, 382 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court's two-sentence
order adopting a magistrate's recommendation for summary judgment). 1
After considering Plaintiffs objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 19) , and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the M&R. (D.E. 9). Accordingly, the Court:
• 	RETAINS Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Major
Aaron M. Cavazos in his individual capacity;
• 	DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs claims for money damages against all
Defendants in their official capacities; and
• 	DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs remaining claims for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915(A)(b)(l).
1 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]." Hab ets, 363 F.3d at 382. The Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth
Circuit's decision apply with equal force here: (I) "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).
2 / 3
Case 2:26-cv-00065 Document 20 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

SO ORDERED.
Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
June 2±_r;l026
3 / 3
DAV 	. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00065 Document 20 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3