Havens v. Pearson et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:24-cv-00096 Document 134 _ Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Unlited States District Court
outhem District of Texas

ENTERED
ebruary 02, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS |
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

|
CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS, § |
Plaintiff, ;
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:04-CV-00096
HEATHER PEARSON, et al., |
Defendants. ;

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court are Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and
Recommendations (“M&Rs”). (D.E. 81); (D.E. 89). The D.E. 81 M&R recommends that the Court
dismiss Sheriff Deputy Stevenson from this action for failure to timely serve. (D.E.'81, p. 5). The
D.E. 89 M&R recommends that the Court retain Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Nurse Castro in her individual capacity, retain Plaintiff s retaliation
claim against Guard Solis in his individual capacity, and dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs
Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims against the Eight John Doe guards in their

individual capacities. (D.E. 89, p. 10). Plaintiff filed written objections to both M&Rs. (D.E. 112);

I
|

(D.E. 111). |
|
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)(1)(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
|

-1/3

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 2:24-cv-00096 Document 134 _ Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page|2 of 3

not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous,

conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole

Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly
erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to
expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth 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 has also authorized district courts to adopt a
magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt.,
Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a
magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).!

After considering Plaintiffs objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 111); (D.E. 112), and ADOPTS the findings and
conclusions of the M&Rs. (D.E. 81); (D.E. 89). Accordingly, the Court: !

e DISMISSES without prejudice Sheriff Deputy Stevenson from is action for

failure to serve him in a timely fashion under Rule 4(m); |

e RETAINS Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment deliberate indifference ‘claim against
|

Nurse Castro in her individual capacity arising from her alleged aetidns in delaying

|

|

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a
summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the
recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. Although one of the instant M&Rs is at! the complaint-
screening stage and not summary judgment, the Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s
decision apply with equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before
the court issued its order”; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the
magistrate here provided a ‘thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court
had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted). |

2/3

|
Case 2:24-cv-00096 Document 134 Filed 02/02/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3
|

1
1

or denying Plaintiff adequate medical care following the use of force on July 31,

2023; and

e RETAINS Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Guard Solis in his individual
capacity arising solely from his actions taken on July 31, 2023; and |
|
|

e DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force

claims against the Eight John Doe Guards in their individual capacities as

conclusory and threadbare.

SO ORDERED.

DAVID-S-MORALES |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas

|
|
|
February 26”, 2026 |

3/3