Havens v. Aransas County et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS, 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
V. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV- 00 2 78
ARANSAS COUNTY, et al. ,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby ' s Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R" ). (D.E. 19). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff s complaint with
prejudice and impose a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. 	at 4. Plaintiff filed written
objections. (D.E. 24; D.E. 26).
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 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 re views for clearly
erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson , 864 F .2d 1219, 12 21
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00278 Document 33 Filed 01/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

,
(5th Cir. 	1989) (per curiam). 	Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to
expeditiously adopt a magistrat e'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 h as also authorized district courts to adopt a
magistrate's recommendation without pro vi ding detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt. ,
Inc. , 363 F.3d 3 78 ,382 (5 th Cir. 2004) (affirming a di strict 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 o bj ection s, 	(D .E. 	24; D. E. 26), and ADOPTS the findings and
co nclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 19). The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff' s complaint with prejudice,
(D .E . 1), IMPOSES a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(g), and INSTRUCTS the Clerk to send
notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas
at Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov. The Co urt will enter a final judgment separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
January ~ 	0 26
DA 	S. 	ORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT ruDGE
1 Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that "because the magistrate here made on ly legal findings on a
summary judgment motion, the district co urt was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the
recommendation] ." Habets, 363 F.3 d at 382. Although the M&R is at th e complaint-screening stage and
not summary jud gment, th e Court finds that the principles an imating the Fifth C ir cuit' s decision apply with
eq ual force here: (1) "t he record was available to the di st ri ct court a full 20 days before the court issued its
o rd er"; (2) " th e magistrate here made no invo lv ed findings of fact ... "; (3) "the magistrate here provided a
thorough analysis to support its recommendation"; a nd (4) "the di strict court had a complete record of the
magistrate's proceedings." See id. (citations omitted).
2 / 2
Case 2:24-cv-00278 Document 33 Filed 01/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2