Madrigal v. United States

W.D. Texas

Madrigal v. United States

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided September 17, 2025·No. 5:25-cv-01005·Unknown

Opinion

FILED September 17, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ——westERNDISTRICT OF TEXAS NM DEPUTY ARTURO MADRIGAL, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. SA-25-CV-01005-OLG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ; Defendant. : ORDER The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed August 25, 2025, concerning Plaintiff’s proposed complaint. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 13.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the R&R was mailed via certified mail on August 25, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 14), and Plaintiff timely filed objections on August 29, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 16). When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.

The Court has reviewed de novo Judge Chestney’s findings and recommendation and finds that the R&R is in all things correct and should be accepted. The Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 13) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff’s proposed complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This case is CLOSED, and all other pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Itis so ORDERED.

SIGNED this \ | day of September, 2025. C\n. ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

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

FILED September 17, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ——westERNDISTRICT OF TEXAS NM DEPUTY ARTURO MADRIGAL, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. SA-25-CV-01005-OLG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ; Defendant. : ORDER The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed August 25, 2025, concerning Plaintiff’s proposed complaint. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 13.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the R&R was mailed via certified mail on August 25, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 14), and Plaintiff timely filed objections on August 29, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 16). When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.

The Court has reviewed de novo Judge Chestney’s findings and recommendation and finds that the R&R is in all things correct and should be accepted. The Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 13) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff’s proposed complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This case is CLOSED, and all other pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Itis so ORDERED.

SIGNED this \ | day of September, 2025. C\n. ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

Madrigal v. United States, (W.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Madrigal v. United States (Madrigal v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related