Kionne Devaughn Lewis v. The 142nd District Court, et al.

N.D. Texas

Kionne Devaughn Lewis v. The 142nd District Court, et al.

District Court, N.D. Texas·Decided July 13, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-00101·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION KIONNE DEVAUGHN LEWIS Plaintiff, v. 2:26-CV-101-Z-BR THE 142nd DISTRICT COURT, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) of the United States Magistrate Judge to dismiss this case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 10. An Objection to the FCR has been filed. ECF No. 11. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection and concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 10) is ADOPTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. LEGAL STANDARD “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(2). For timely objections, “[t]he 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). However, for objections that are not filed within the fourteen-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (5th Cir. 2020).

ANALYSIS The Magistrate Judge filed her FCR on June 18, 2026. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff filed his Objection eight days later, on June 26, 2026. ECF No. 11. Because Plaintiff's Objection was timely, this Court reviews de novo any part of the Magistrate’s disposition “that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (emphasis added). Plaintiff does not make any specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s FCR. See generally ECF No. 11. Instead, he lodges four new allegations against the individual Defendants: (1) Judge Rogers bribed him not to file objections; (2) Defendant Nordolf and a third party! were “nice to [him]” so he would testify; (3) the Defendants published information out of his hearing at his trial; and (4) the Defendants “made up a phone call... to help [Plaintiff].” Jd. None of these allegations appear clearly in Plaintiff's Complaint or supplemental questionnaire. See generally ECF Nos. 3, 9. The Court need not consider these new allegations that Plaintiff raises for the first time in his Objection to an FCR. See Freeman v. Cnty. of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848, 852 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he district court should not be compelled to ignore that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their best evidence to the magistrate judge.”). Moreover, the allegations do not address the specific finding of the FCR: that the claims against these Defendants are barred by judicial and prosecutorial immunity. See ECF No. 10 at 4—5. Nor do they address Plaintiffs failure to allege physical injury, which is an independent reason to bar the claims. See ECF No. 10 at 3-4. 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,

The third party is likely Defendant Todd Drexler. Compare ECF No. 11 at 1 (accusing third party “Todd Medders” of being nice to Plaintiff), with ECF No. 9 at 1 (listing “Todd Medders [sic] Drexler” as a Defendant).

conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Just so here. Because Plaintiffs statements fail to assert specific objections, Plaintiffs Objection is OVERRULED. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection and concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct following de novo review. It is therefore ORDERED that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 10) is ADOPTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. SO ORDERED. Lawn July (3, 2026 (fn MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION KIONNE DEVAUGHN LEWIS Plaintiff, v. 2:26-CV-101-Z-BR THE 142nd DISTRICT COURT, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) of the United States Magistrate Judge to dismiss this case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 10. An Objection to the FCR has been filed. ECF No. 11. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection and concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 10) is ADOPTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. LEGAL STANDARD “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(2). For timely objections, “[t]he 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). However, for objections that are not filed within the fourteen-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (5th Cir. 2020).

ANALYSIS The Magistrate Judge filed her FCR on June 18, 2026. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff filed his Objection eight days later, on June 26, 2026. ECF No. 11. Because Plaintiff's Objection was timely, this Court reviews de novo any part of the Magistrate’s disposition “that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (emphasis added). Plaintiff does not make any specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s FCR. See generally ECF No. 11. Instead, he lodges four new allegations against the individual Defendants: (1) Judge Rogers bribed him not to file objections; (2) Defendant Nordolf and a third party! were “nice to [him]” so he would testify; (3) the Defendants published information out of his hearing at his trial; and (4) the Defendants “made up a phone call... to help [Plaintiff].” Jd. None of these allegations appear clearly in Plaintiff's Complaint or supplemental questionnaire. See generally ECF Nos. 3, 9. The Court need not consider these new allegations that Plaintiff raises for the first time in his Objection to an FCR. See Freeman v. Cnty. of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848, 852 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he district court should not be compelled to ignore that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their best evidence to the magistrate judge.”). Moreover, the allegations do not address the specific finding of the FCR: that the claims against these Defendants are barred by judicial and prosecutorial immunity. See ECF No. 10 at 4—5. Nor do they address Plaintiffs failure to allege physical injury, which is an independent reason to bar the claims. See ECF No. 10 at 3-4. 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,

The third party is likely Defendant Todd Drexler. Compare ECF No. 11 at 1 (accusing third party “Todd Medders” of being nice to Plaintiff), with ECF No. 9 at 1 (listing “Todd Medders [sic] Drexler” as a Defendant).

conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Just so here. Because Plaintiffs statements fail to assert specific objections, Plaintiffs Objection is OVERRULED. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objection and concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct following de novo review. It is therefore ORDERED that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 10) is ADOPTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. SO ORDERED. Lawn July (3, 2026 (fn MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kionne Devaughn Lewis v. The 142nd District Court, et al., (N.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Kionne Devaughn Lewis v. The 142nd District Court, et al. (Kionne Devaughn Lewis v. The 142nd District Court, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related