Ingle v. Butler

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION DONALD WAYNE INGLE JR., TDCJ-CID No. 00769010, Plaintiff, v. 2:24-CV-140-Z-BR KAYLA BUTLER, e¢ al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs Objection (ECF No. 21), filed April 11, 2025, to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) (ECF No. 19) to dismiss this case as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). After considering the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, the relevant law, and the briefing, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s FCR. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Complaint “arises from his efforts to change cells due to his fear that a violent altercation would occur with his cellmate.” ECF No. 19 at 2. After considering Plaintiffs Complaint, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). ECF No. 19 at 15. Specifically, the Magistrate determined that: (1) Plaintiffs claims against Defendants! in their official capacities should be dismissed as frivolous; (2) Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendant Gonzales for supervisory liability; (3) Plaintiff failed to state a

1 Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Kayla Butler, Noella Alvarez, Lucia Viagas, Tanner eee William Miller, William Jones, Adam Gonzales, S. Patton, K. Loza, and T. Britten. ECF

constitutional violation for failure to protect against Defendants Alvarez, Butler, Mortenson, Jones, and Viagas; (4) Plaintiff failed to state a claim that he was denied access to the courts; (5) Plaintiff failed to allege any due process violations against Defendants Butler, Miller, or Mortenson; and (6) Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Jones for placing him in high security fails to state a constitutional violation. See ECF No. 19 at 1-12. LEGAL STANDARD A party may serve and file objections to a non-dispositive magistrate judge’s order “within 14 days after being served with a copy.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(a). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3). In that event, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Jd. A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous’ if “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). And an order is “contrary to law” when it “fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Catskill Dev., LLC v. Park Place Enim’t Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, asking the Court to “liberally constru[e] the construction and simple language” of his objection and avoid “penaliz[ing] him with a ‘strike’ as he attempts to pursue his constitutional protections.” ECF No. 21 at 1. However, Plaintiff does not appear to make any specific objections to the Magistrate’s FCR. Objections to the FCR must be “specific” and “put the district court on notice of the urged error.” Williams v. K&B Equip. Co., 724 F.2d 508, 511 (5th Cir. 1984). Where a party objecting

to the FCR fails to assert specific objections, the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Just so here. Plaintiff merely rehashes the information previously set forth in his Complaint, reiterates his belief that his claims are not frivolous or malicious, and asks only that the Court “appropriately apply the law and case law to bring justice to a situation he believed to be unjust.” Plaintiff's statements do not indicate that the Magistrate’s FCR was clearly erroneous or contrary to law—accordingly, Plaintiffs Objection is overruled. CONCLUSION After considering the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, the relevant law, and the briefing, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s FCR (ECF No. 19). Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. SO ORDERED. gata April 29 2025 wt, MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE