Martinez v. Nueces County Sheriff's Office/Jail

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 08, 2021 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

FRED G. MARTINEZ, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL NO. 2:18-CV-158 § NUECES COUNTY, et al, § § Defendants. §

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) to deny Plaintiff Fred G. Martinez (“Martinez”) Motions for Default Judgment. Dkt. No. 145. The Court is also in receipt of Martinez’s objections to the M&R. Dkt. No. 158. Martinez moved for default judgment because he claimed Defendants had filed their answer one day after the deadline set by the Court. Dkt. No. 112, 131, 132, 140, 144. The Magistrate Judge determined that the answer was timely because it was filed within 45 days of Defendants’ receipt of the service of the summons and amended complaint. Dkt. No. 145. The Court reviews objected-to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). But if the objections are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature the court need not conduct a de novo review. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987). Martinez’s objections are legally and factually irrelevant to the issue in the M&R and the Court OVERRULES Martinez’s objections as frivolous. See id. After review of the briefing, record and relevant law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety and hereby DENIES Martinez’s motions for default judgment, Dkt. Nos. 112, 131, 132, 140, 144.

SIGNED this 8th day of March, 2021.

Hilda Tagle Senior United States District Judge

2/2