Berrocal v. Bondi

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT —___ JY 30,2025 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ay. NM HENRY B. BERROCAL, § DEPUTY Plaintiff, : v. : CIVIL NO. SA-25-CV-279-OLG PAMELA BONDI et ai., : Defendants. : ORDER The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Dkt. No. 27), filed on July 14, 2025, concerning Plaintiff Henry B. Berrocal’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief and Sanctions (the “Motion”) (Dkt. No. 25). Plaintiff filed objections (the “Objections”) (Dkt. Nos. 32; 35) to the Report. When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987). Any portions of the magistrate judge’s finding or recommendation that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. The Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report subject to the Objections and is of the opinion that the Report is correct, and that the Objections are without merit as to Judge Bemporad’s ultimate findings. Accordingly, the Objections (Dkt. Nos. 32; 35) are OVERRULED, the Report (Dkt. No. 27) is ACCEPTED and, for the reasons set forth therein, the Motion (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED.

IT ISSO ORDERED. SIGNED this Z PO a of July, 2025.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge