Mark Anthony Troxler v. Denis McDonough, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION

MARK ANTHONY TROXLER CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-0074

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING Before the Court are four Appeals of a Magistrate Judge Decision filed by Plaintiff Mark Anthony Troxler (“Troxler”). See Record Documents 45, 48, 51, and 55. Each filing seeks review of a non-dispositive order entered by United States Magistrate Judge Mark L. Hornsby. For the reasons set forth below, appeals at record documents 45, 48, and 51 are DENIED. The appeal at record document 55 is DENIED AS MOOT in part and DENIED in part. All orders of the Magistrate Judge are AFFIRMED. LAW AND ANALYSIS I. Applicable Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter. The ruling must be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This is a highly deferential standard. The Court must affirm unless it is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. See Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). II. Analysis a. Record Document 45: Appeal of Denial of Transfer Troxler challenges the Magistrate Judge’s denial of transfer and related venue determinations. See Record Document 42 & 45. The Magistrate Judge analyzed the

operative facts and applicable venue statutes. Troxler merely reiterates arguments previously presented and expresses disagreement with the ruling. He has not demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, this appeal is DENIED. b. Record Document 48: Appeal of Grant of Extension of Time Troxler appeals the Magistrate Judge’s order granting Defendant an extension of time to respond. See Record Documents 44 & 48. Scheduling matters fall within the Magistrate Judge’s discretion. Rule 6(b) permits extensions for good cause. The Magistrate Judge found good cause shown. The Court also notes that Troxler failed to file an opposition to the motion for extension. Troxler’s disagreement with the Magistrate

Judge does not establish clear error. Accordingly, this appeal is DENIED. c. Record Document 51: Appeal of Denial of Entry of Default Troxler challenges the denial of entry of default. Although the appeal was filed in this case, the denial order by the Magistrate Judge being referenced is record document 26 in case number 24-cv-1529, a related lawsuit filed by Troxler. The Magistrate Judge determined that Troxler had not complied with Rule 4(i), which governs service upon a United States officer or agency. Without proper service, default under Rule 55 is unavailable as a matter of law. Troxler has not demonstrated compliance with Rule 4(i). The Magistrate Judge’s ruling was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, this appeal is DENIED. d. Record Document 55: Appeal of Grant of Stay Troxler appeals the Magistrate Judge’s order granting a stay of proceedings during

a lapse in appropriations. A district court possesses inherent authority to manage its docket, including entering temporary stays. The stay was granted in response to representations that Department of Justice counsel were unable to perform litigation functions during the lapse. The stay was within the Magistrate Judge’s discretion, and Troxler has not shown clear error. Because the stay has now been lifted, this appeal is DENIED AS MOOT. To the extent Troxler again seeks default judgment, the service deficiencies previously identified remain. Thus, this appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, Record Document 55 is DENIED AS MOOT in part and otherwise DENIED. e. Repetitive Frivolous Filings Warning The Court notes that Troxler has repeatedly filed motions and appeals challenging

routine rulings of the Magistrate Judge that lack any arguable legal or factual basis. While the Court construes pro se filings liberally, that leniency does not permit the continued submission of frivolous or duplicative motions. The filing of meritless motions and objections unnecessarily consumes judicial resources and delays the resolution of this matter. Troxler is therefore warned that he should carefully review the applicable standards before submitting additional motions or appeals and to refrain from filing further pleadings that lack a legitimate legal basis. CONCLUSION Based on the reasons explained above, Troxler’s appeal at record documents 45 48, and 51 are DENIED. Troxler’s appeal at record document 55 is DENIED AS MOOT in part and DENIED in part. All of the Magistrate Judge’s orders are AFFIRMED. An order consistent with this ruling shall issue herewith. THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 20th day of February, 2026.

KAk [pbb / JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT