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

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: February 2, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00281
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED February 02, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS, § Plaintiff, : V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00281 SHERIFF BILL MILLS, er al., Defendants. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 35). The M&R recommends that the Court retain Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Deputy Chief Chapa and Lieutenant Martinez and strike any other construed claim contained in the amended complaint. /d. at 9. Plaintiff and Defendants have both filed written objections. (D.E. 43); (D.E. 44). 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. § 636(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.). Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. Edmond v. 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 (Sth Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly

1/2

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, 731-32 (Sth 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 Mgemt., 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. 43); (D.E. 44), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 35). Accordingly, the Court RETAINS Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Deputy Chief Chapa and Lieutenant Martinez and STRIKES any other construed claim contained in the amended complaint. SO ORDERED. / mo / If

□□□□□□□□ DAV LES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas February @*", 2026

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). 2/2