Martin v. ABM Facility Services

UNITED S TATES DISTRICT C OURT
S OUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
J OEY D OUGLAS MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ABM F ACILITY SERVICES ,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION N O
4:25-cv-04251
J UDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER A DOPTING
MEMORANDA AND R ECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin proceeds here pro se. He
filed a complaint asserting violations of the Texas Payday
Law 	and 	the 	Due 	Process 	Clause 	of 	the 	Fourteenth
Amendment. 	Dkt 	1 	at 	3. 	He 	also 	brings 	a 	claim 	for
conversion under Texas law. Ibid. Plaintiff’s claims stem
from 	Defendant 	ABM Facility 	Services garnishing 	his
wages. Id at ¶2.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). Dkt 7. Plaintiff filed
motions 	for 	“declaratory 	judgment 	regarding 	unlawful
waiver of constitutional rights” and for a preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order. Dkts 11 & 12.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Christina Bryan. Dkt 13. Judge Bryan issued a
Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	in 	which 	she
recommended that the motion by Defendant to dismiss be
granted 	and 	the 	motion 	by 	Plaintiff 	for 	declaratory
judgment be denied. Dkt 14. She there recommends that
Plaintiff’s claim under 42 USC §1983 be dismissed with
prejudice 	and that 	his 	state 	law 	claims 	be 	dismissed
without prejudice. Id at 9–10. Judge Bryan then issued a
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 21, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04251 Document 24 Filed 11/18/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
second Memorandum and Recommendation in which she
recommended 	that 	the 	motion 	by 	Plaintiff 	for 	a
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order be
denied. Dkt 15.
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
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiff filed several documents following entry of the
Memoranda and Recommendations. See Dkts 16, 17 & 18.
Of these, only his “notice of non-consent to proceed before
a Magistrate Judge” appears, liberally construed, as an
objection. Dkt 18.
Upon de novo review and determination, Plaintiff’s
objections lack merit. Plaintiff indicates that he doesn’t
consent to a Magistrate Judge conducting any proceedings
in this action. Id at 1. But a Magistrate Judge may issue
recommendations regarding any motion upon referral by
this Court under 28 USC §636(b)(1). That is different than
consent, as referral still involves final oversight by an
Article III Judge.
The objections by Plaintiff to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 18.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memoranda and Recommendations,
the record, and the applicable law.
The 	Memoranda 	and 	Recommendations 	of 	the
Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkts 14 & 15.
Case 4:25-cv-04251 Document 24 Filed 11/18/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The motion by Defendant ABM Facility Services to
dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 7.
The 	motions by Plaintiff 	Joey 	Douglas Martin 	for
declaratory judgment and for a preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order are DENIED. Dkts 11 & 12.
The claims by Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin asserted
under 42 USC §1983 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The claims by Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin asserted
under state law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
To the extent that any other filing by Plaintiff may be
construed as a motion, it is DENIED AS MOOT . Dkts 16 & 17.
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT .
SO ORDERED.
Signed on November 18, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04251 Document 24 Filed 11/18/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3