Miller v. Wallace et al

- 1 -
No. 6:25-cv-00400
Benjamin Miller,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sammual Wallace et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this civil-rights suit alleging violations of his constitu-
tional rights. Doc. 12. The case was referred to a magistrate judge,
who issued a report recommending that the court dismiss plain-
tiff’s lawsuit with prejudice as frivolous. Doc. 24 at 4. The report
explained that plaintiff’s allegations that he was “brainwashed”
and that defendants tried to force him “to see” himself as “a glu-
ten, homosexual,” as well as the attachments to his complaint,
show that his complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Id.
at 3–4. Plaintiff timely filed written objections. Doc. 26.
The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filing objections
must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the
district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th
Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en-
title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis-
trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28
F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). When the objections are im-
proper, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
Case 6:25-cv-00400-JCB-KNM Document 28 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory
committee’s notes to 1983 amendment.
Plaintiff identifies no error in the report. In his objections, he
swears repeatedly and makes sarcastic remarks about the report’s
characterization of his claims as irrational. See generally Doc. 26.
Plaintiff also raises incoherent arguments about his past, his con-
viction, and his “fight for people in the human trafficking indus-
try.” Id. Nowhere does he engage with the report’s reasoning or
identify the specific findings he objects to. Plaintiff’s objections
are improper and are overruled.
Having reviewed the record and being satisfied that there is no
clear error, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommen-
dations. All claims in this matter are dismissed with prejudice.
Any pending motions are denied as moot.
So ordered by the court on March 5, 2026.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-00400-JCB-KNM Document 28 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>