Martin v. ABM Facility Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOEY DOUGLAS MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
versus
ABM FACILITY SERVICES,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-04251
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin proceeds here pro se. He
sued Defendant ABM Facility Services for claims related to
garnishment of his wages. Dkt 1 at ¶2. The matter was
referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Christina A.
Bryan. Dkt 13.
Prior order granted a motion by Defendant to dismiss
and entered final judgment. Dkt 24; see also Dkt 7
(motion). Plaintiff now moves to alter or amend that
judgment. Dkt 25. Judge Bryan entered a Memorandum
and Recommendation recommending the motion be denied.
Dkt 27.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04251 Document 29 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 28. On de novo review and
determination, they are scattershot and lacking in merit.
In both the motion and objections, Plaintiff relies on old,
unavailing arguments. He otherwise fails to demonstrate
that the prior order relied on manifest legal error.
The objections by Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin to the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 28.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 27.
The motion by Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin to alter
or amend judgment is DENIED. Dkt 25.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 25, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04251 Document 29 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2