Diez v. Mr. Schneider et al

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JAMES LOGAN DIEZ,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00295
MR. SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff James Logan Diez’s Rule 60 Motion to Set
Aside the Judgment of Dismissal. D.E. 70. Plaintiff ostensibly seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s Order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct of an adverse party. D.E. 54. On May 22, 2026,
Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Deny
Plaintiff’s Rule 60 Motion to Set Aside Judgment of Dismissal Due to Fraud,” finding that
Plaintiff had not demonstrated any fraud that prevented him from fairly prosecuting his
case. D.E. 71.
Plaintiff filed his objections (D.E. 75) on June 8, 2026. The objections are nothing
more than a rebriefing of his substantive complaints. In effect, Plaintiff again suggests that
the judgment is the product of fraud because, he believes, Defendants’ briefing did not
accurately reflect the law. The Court has previously reviewed the briefing and determined
the case on the basis of the Court’s own assessment of the law.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00295 Document 77 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
Plaintiff’s objections, like his motion, fail to demonstrate the type of fraud that Rule
60(b)(3) is designed to remedy. Because the objections do not address the specific findings
of fact or conclusions of law that pertain to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, they
are not adequate objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393,
405 (5th Cir. 2003); Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that
right to de novo review is not invoked when a petitioner merely reurges arguments
contained in the original petition). Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED in their
entirety.
Having reviewed the findings and conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and the relevant portions of the
record, and having conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation to which objections were specifically directed, the
Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief under Rule
60 (D.E. 70) is DENIED.
ORDERED on July 22, 2026.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00295 Document 77 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2