Martin v. ABM Facility Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
J OEY MARTIN, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O . 4:25-CV-04251
§
ABM FACILITY SERVICES, 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 18, 2025, the District Judge adopted this Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to FCRP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) 	and denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Declaratory Judgment (ECF 14), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation 	denying 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for 	Preliminary 	Injunction 	and
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF 15), and entered Final Judgment.1 ECF 24. Now
before the Court is Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. ECF
25. The Court recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion be DENIED.
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 13.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04251 Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
I. 	Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this case against
his employer, ABM Texas General Services, Inc. d/b/a ABM (misnamed as ABM
Facility Services) to challenge the garnishment of his wages for child support. ECF
1. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. 	ECF 7. 	The Magistrate Judge
concluded subject matter jurisdiction exists and recommended granting Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim with prejudice because Defendant is not
a state actor acting under color of state law and declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. 	ECF 14. 	The Magistrate Judge then
recommended denying Plaintiff’s Motion for injunctive relief because he could not
show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. ECF 15. Plaintiff
filed multiple documents following entry of the Magistrate Judge’s two Memoranda
and Recommendations but did not file specific objections to either. 	The District
Judge acknowledged these filings and liberally construed his “notice of non-consent
(ECF 18) as an objection. ECF 24. The District Judge overruled Plaintiff’s objection
and adopted the recommendations in full. Id.
II. 	Rule 59(e) Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to file “[a] motion to
alter or amend a judgment . . . no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”
Case 4:25-cv-04251 Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Rule 59(e) “serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” 	iiiTec Ltd. v. Weatherford
Tech. Holdings, LLC, No. CV H-19-3386, 2022 WL 138030, at *8–9 (S.D. Tex. Jan.
14, 2022) (quoting Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
Relief under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary” remedy to be used sparingly. Hermary
v. GCA Services Group, Inc., Civil Action No. H-06-3231, 2008 WL 11481863, at
*1 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (citations omitted). A Rule 59(e) motion must “clearly establish
either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence”
and “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made
before the judgment issued.” Id. (quoting Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854,
963-64 (5th Cir. 2003)).
III. 	Analysis
Plaintiff seeks relief from the November 18, 2025 Final Judgment on grounds
that the Court (1) failed to consider his “supplemental evidence,”; (2) misapplied 42
U.S.C. § 1983; (3) erroneously assumed the existence of a judicial child support
order; (4) mischaracterized his injury as financial; and (5) failed to address a “clear
constitutional violation.”
As to his first ground, the Order of Adoption clearly states that the Court
considered Plaintiff’s post-Memorandum and Recommendation filings but only one
constituted a proper objection. 	ECF 24. 	As to the remaining grounds, Plaintiff
Case 4:25-cv-04251 Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
merely rehashes arguments that the Court considered and rejected for the reasons
discussed in the Memoranda and Recommendations, which the district judge
adopted in full. Id. Plaintiff has not shown manifest error or presented new evidence
that justifies the extraordinary remedy of relief from judgment.
IV. 	Conclusion and Recommendation
The Court recommends that Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment be DENIED.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Christina A Bryan
Signed on January 21, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-04251 Document 27 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4