Christopher Dale Havens v. Sheriff Bill Mills, et al.

Opinion

Southern District of Texas _ ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nonna □□□□□ clon SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS : CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS, § Plaintiff,

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00244 SHERIFF BILL MILLS, et al., . Defendants. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 27). The M&R recommends that the Court: e dismiss Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims without prejudice; e retain Plaintiff’s individual-capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process claims

against Sheriff Mills, Chief Deputy Gutierrez, Deputy Chief Chapa, and Lieutenant Martinez regarding their alleged collective decision to order Plaintiff ’s placement into solitary confinement on November 13, 2022; and e dismiss all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

(D.E. 27, p. 67). Plaintiff and Defendants have both filed written objections. (D.E. 38); (D.E. 39). 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. § 63 6(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.). 473

Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will | : not be considered. Edmond y. 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 (5th 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, 73 {33 (5th 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 Memt., 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 Plaintiff and Defendants’ objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court OVERRULES the objections, (D.E. 38); (D.E. 39), and ADOPTS the findings and □

conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 27). Accordingly, the Court: e DISMISSES Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims without prejudice; | e RETAINS Plaintiff’s individual-capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Sheriff Mills, Chief Deputy Gutierrez, Deputy Chief Chapa, and oe ' 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). i 2/3

Lieutenant Martinez regarding their alleged collective decision to order Plaintiff’s placement into solitary confinement on November 13, 2022; and e DISMISSES all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SO ORDERED. C ORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas February 2:7~2026 3/3