Herrmann v. Squires, III

Opinion

FILED August 12, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM DEPUTY JOHN HERRMANN and CONCHITA § HERRMANN, § § Plaintiffs, § § CIVIL NO. SA-25-CV-561-OLG v. § § WILLIAM SQUIRES, III et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Dkt. No. 22), filed on July 21, 2025. Plaintiffs filed objections (the “Objections”) (Dkt. No. 26) 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 Chestney’s ultimate findings. Accordingly, the Objections (Dkt. No. 26) are OVERRULED, the Report (Dkt. No. 22) is ACCEPTED and, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Any other pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

This case is CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED this | 4 /day of August, 2025. wn, ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge