Caballero v. McClanaham et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DTVISION
EDGAR CABALLERO,
Institutional ID No. 02394150
Plaintiff,
No. 5:24-CV-00188-H
PATRICIA MCLANAHAN, et a/.,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
R-ECOMMENDATION OF TTM STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made thorough findings, conclusions, and
recommendations (FCR) that this Court dismiss with prejudice all of Plaintiffs claims. Dkt.
No. 14. Plaintiff filed brief objections and requested leave to file an amended pleading.
Dkt. Nos. 16, 17.
"The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72b)G); see 28 U.S.C.
$ 636OX1). In contrast, the distdctjudge reviews any unobjected+o findings, conclusions,
and recommendarions for plain error. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the
unobjected-to portions of the FCR for plain error and, finding none, expressly accepts and
adopts those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
Additionally, in light of Plaintiffs objections to the FCR, the Court has conducted a
de novo review of the relevant ponions of the FCR and the record in this case. Plaintiffs
objections consist of mere disagreements with the Magisrate Judge's wording, requests that
the Court excuse his pleading deficiencies because of his starus as a pro se prisoner, and
Case 5:24-cv-00188-H Document 19 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

demands that the Court decline the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and grant him the
relief he seeks. The Court finds that the objections do not wanant revisiting, modiffing, or
rejecting the FCR. Plaintiff disagrees with the Magisuate Judge's conclusions, but he does
not refute the factual or legal bases for her recommendation. Plaintiffhas not shown that
the Magistrate Judge ened in recommending dismissal of these claims.
Plaintiffalso seeks leave to amend his claims, and he attached a proposed amended
pleading to his second motion. Dkt. Nos. 16,17,17-1. But his proposed amendment does
not cure any of the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge. Thus, the Court denies
the morion for leave to amend because it is furile.
Thus, the objections are ovemrled, and the Court accepts and adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magisuate Judge. As a result,
Plaintiffs complaint and all claims asserted within it are dismissed with prejudice for failure
to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. $$ 1915 and 1915A. This dismissal will count as a
qualiffing dismissal or "strike" under 28 U.S.C. $ l9l5 ar,d Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383 (sth Cir. 1996).
A11 reliefnot expressly granted is denied, and any pending motions are denied.
The Court will enter judgment accordingly.
So ordered.
Dated tanuaryfu,2026.
JAMES SLEY HENDRIX
Unite tates District Judge
2
Case 5:24-cv-00188-H Document 19 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>