Moses v. Sylvia et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
DAWN MICHELLE MOSES,
Plaintiff.
V.
JUDGE JIMMY SYLVIA, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00346
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S MEMORANDUM AND
RECOMMENDATION AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS
On October 22, 2025, all pretrial matters in this case were referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. 7.
Judge Edison filed a memorandum opinion, order, and recommendation on
November 4, 2025, denying the plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel
and service by the U.S. Marshals; recommending that the plaintiff’s application for
a 	writ 	of 	mandamus 	and 	temporary 	restraining 	order 	be 	denied; 	and
recommending that the court defer resolution of any remaining requests for relief
until the defendants have been served and entered appearances. Dkt. 13.
On 	November 	18, 	2025, 	the 	plaintiff 	filed 	her 	objections 	to 	the
memorandum and recommendation. See Dkt. 15. Two different standards of
review govern the plaintiff’s objections. Judge Edison’s rulings denying the
plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel and service by the U.S. Marshals
are non-dispositive pretrial orders. See Lewis v. Wilkinson, No. CIV.A. 11-0469,
2011 WL 3626418, at *1 (W.D. La. Aug. 17, 2011) (holding that actions not listed in
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 26, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00346 Document 16 Filed on 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as dispositive motions are non-dispositive matters on
which a magistrate judge may rule); see also Arnold v. Gilmore, No. 16-CV-1299,
2016 WL 5942241, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2016) (holding that a magistrate judge’s
order denying Plaintiff’s requests for service by U.S. Marshal and appointment of
counsel were “non-dispositive matters”). District courts will sustain objections to
non-dispositive pretrial orders only “where it has been shown that the magistrate
judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The clear error standard is “highly deferential” and “the
court [should] affirm the decision of the magistrate judge unless on the entire
evidence [the court] is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” Baylor Health Care Sys. v. Equitable Plan Servs., Inc., 955 F.
Supp. 2d 678, 689 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (quotation omitted). This situation does not
meet that standard. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s objections to Judge Edison’s orders
denying her request for service by U.S. Marshal and the appointment of counsel
are overruled.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court is required to “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been]
made.” After conducting this de novo review, the court may “accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Case 3:25-cv-00346 Document 16 Filed on 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The court has carefully considered the objections, the memorandum and
recommendation, the pleadings, and the record. The court accepts Judge Edison’s
memorandum and recommendation and adopts it as the opinion of the court. It is
therefore ordered that:
(1) 	Judge Edison’s memorandum 	and recommendation (Dkt. 	13) is
approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court; and
(2) 	The Court will defer resolution of the plaintiff’s remaining requests for
relief until the defendants have been served and entered appearances;
and
(3) 	The plaintiff must ensure that each defendant is properly served by
January 29, 2026. Failure to serve a defendant by January 29, 2026,
will 	result 	in 	dismissal 	of 	the 	plaintiff’s 	claim(s) 	against 	that
defendant.
SIGNED on Galveston Island this 26th day of November 2025.
______________________________
JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00346 Document 16 Filed on 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3