Abel Garcia-Perez v. Jaime Masters, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: January 8, 2026
• Docket: 7:23-cv-00137
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 08, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk MCALLEN DIVISION ABEL GARCIA-PEREZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 7:23-CV-00137 § JAIME MASTERS, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending before the Court is the December 8, 2025, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Nadia S. Medrano. (Dkt. No. 42). Judge Medrano made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff Abel Garcia-Perez’s Application to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (“Application”), (Dkt. No. 40), be denied, (Dkt. No. 42). The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). While somewhat unclear, Plaintiff Garcia- Perez filed three objections on December 18, 2025. (Dkt. No. 43). First, he objects to Judge Medrano’s application of when district courts can deny motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis under Champluvier v. Couch, 309 F. App’x 902, 903 (5th Cir. 2009). (Id. at 2). Garcia-Perez appears to imply that, unlike in Champluvier, the Court should not deny his Application because his is based on nonfrivolous grounds. (Id.). Second, Garcia-Perez objects to the R&R because he alleges that circumstances beyond his control during his incarceration are the reasonable source of his delay or failure to respond to the Court, including Judge Medrano’s R&R. (Id. at 2-3). Third, Garcia-Perez objects to Judge Medrano’s finding that he has not requested an extension of time to respond to the R&R and asserts that he has “indeed filed various requests for extension of [the] time limit to respond.” (Id. at 4). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de

novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that: (1) Magistrate Judge Medrano’s R&R, (Dkt. No. 42), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and (2) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal, (Dkt. No. 40), is DENIED. It is SO ORDERED. Signed on January 8, 2026. Dew & dpe DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE