Marvin E. Newton v. LT Martinez, et al.

N.D. Texas

Marvin E. Newton v. LT Martinez, et al.

District Court, N.D. Texas·Decided August 4, 2026·No. 5:25-cv-00211·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION MARVIN E. NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. No. 5:25-CV-211-H LT MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants. ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) that the Court deny pro se plaintiff Marvin E. Newton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Dkt. No. 13. The Magistrate Judge also issued an FCR recommending that the Court deny Newton’s “emergency petition for injunctive relief and complaint for racketeering and conspiracy,” Dkt. No. 11, which the Magistrate Judge construed as a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 12 at 1. No specific objections to either FCR were filed.' Where no specific objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (Sth Cir.

' After the FCRs issued, Newton filed a document titled “Comprehensive Report, Evidentiary Submission, and Formal Defense Directives.” Dkt. No. 14. The filing does not mention the FCRs, let alone “make objections to specific findings within the[m].” Reed v. Voorhees, No. 4:24- CV-597, 2024 WL 3803031, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2024). Thus, to the extent Newton’s filing can be construed as an objection, the Court need not consider it in resolving the FCRs. See Williams v. K & B Equip. Co., 724 F.2d 508, 511 (Sth Cir. 1984) (explaining that objections to an FCR must be “sufficiently specific to put the district court on notice of the urged error”).

2020). The District Court has reviewed the FCRs for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCRs. The Court denies Newton’s “emergency petition” (Dkt. No. 11), denies his application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 4), and dismisses this action without prejudice under Rule 41(b). All other pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered on August 4 , 2026.

JAMES SLEY HENDRIX UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION MARVIN E. NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. No. 5:25-CV-211-H LT MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants. ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) that the Court deny pro se plaintiff Marvin E. Newton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Dkt. No. 13. The Magistrate Judge also issued an FCR recommending that the Court deny Newton’s “emergency petition for injunctive relief and complaint for racketeering and conspiracy,” Dkt. No. 11, which the Magistrate Judge construed as a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 12 at 1. No specific objections to either FCR were filed.' Where no specific objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations only for plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (Sth Cir.

' After the FCRs issued, Newton filed a document titled “Comprehensive Report, Evidentiary Submission, and Formal Defense Directives.” Dkt. No. 14. The filing does not mention the FCRs, let alone “make objections to specific findings within the[m].” Reed v. Voorhees, No. 4:24- CV-597, 2024 WL 3803031, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2024). Thus, to the extent Newton’s filing can be construed as an objection, the Court need not consider it in resolving the FCRs. See Williams v. K & B Equip. Co., 724 F.2d 508, 511 (Sth Cir. 1984) (explaining that objections to an FCR must be “sufficiently specific to put the district court on notice of the urged error”).

2020). The District Court has reviewed the FCRs for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCRs. The Court denies Newton’s “emergency petition” (Dkt. No. 11), denies his application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 4), and dismisses this action without prejudice under Rule 41(b). All other pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered on August 4 , 2026.

JAMES SLEY HENDRIX UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Marvin E. Newton v. LT Martinez, et al., (N.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Marvin E. Newton v. LT Martinez, et al. (Marvin E. Newton v. LT Martinez, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related