Hanon v. Smith

E.D. Texas

Hanon v. Smith

DecidedApril 25, 2022

Docket6:20-cv-00533

StatusUnknown

This text of Hanon v. Smith (Hanon v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanon v. Smith, (E.D. Tex. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:20-cv-00533 Kenneth Hanon, Plaintiff, V. Jon Michael Smith, d/b/a Panola Auto Sales et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Kenneth Hanon filed this action pro se alleging viola- tions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 2. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Doc. 31. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 33. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because plaintiff’s plead- ings fail to allege specific facts as necessary to support a claim pur- suant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When a party files specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). General, vague, conclusive, or frivolous ob- jections, however, will not suffice. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). In such cases, the court will only review the magistrate judge’s findings to determine if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. See Gallegos v. Equity Title Co. of Am., Inc., 484 F. Supp. 2d 589, 591 (W.D. Tex. 2007) (citations omit- ted). Here, plaintiff merely reiterated the arguments made in his orig- inal complaint. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as well as the objections, the court overrules the plaintiff’s objections and accepts the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations. Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without preju- dice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

So ordered by the court on April 25, 2022. fLoclen BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:20-cv-00533 Kenneth Hanon, Plaintiff, V. Jon Michael Smith, d/b/a Panola Auto Sales et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Kenneth Hanon filed this action pro se alleging viola- tions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 2. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Doc. 31. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 33. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because plaintiff’s plead- ings fail to allege specific facts as necessary to support a claim pur- suant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When a party files specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). General, vague, conclusive, or frivolous ob- jections, however, will not suffice. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). In such cases, the court will only review the magistrate judge’s findings to determine if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. See Gallegos v. Equity Title Co. of Am., Inc., 484 F. Supp. 2d 589, 591 (W.D. Tex. 2007) (citations omit- ted). Here, plaintiff merely reiterated the arguments made in his orig- inal complaint. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as well as the objections, the court overrules the plaintiff’s objections and accepts the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations. Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without preju- dice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

So ordered by the court on April 25, 2022. fLoclen BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hanon v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanon-v-smith-txed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack