Matthew Otero v. City of Rockport, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MATTHEW OTERO, § Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00246 CITY OF ROCKPORT, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 36). The M&R recommends the Court grant the City of Rockport’s and the Aransas County Navigation District’s motions to dismiss, (D.E. 17); (D.E. 26), and dismiss Plaintiffs claims against them for failure to state a claim. (D.E. 36, p. 1). The M&R further recommends the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs related state law claims. Id. Plaintifftimely filed objections to the M&R. (D.E. 37). When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.). Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. Edmond y, Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[fjrivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be

1/3

considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to expeditiously adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir. 1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).! After considering Plaintiffs objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 37), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 36). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the City’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 17), and the Navigation District’s motion to dismiss. (D.E. 26). The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs related state law claims. The Court further DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend because it is clear that the amendment would be futile. (D.E. 39); see also Johnson v. Harris Cnty., 83 F.4th 941, 947 (5th Cir. 2023). The Court will enter a final judgment separately.

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. The Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s decision apply with equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order”; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted). 2/3

SO ORDERED. —~ / J

□ / dM f \ \ LA. \ □ \ DAVIDSS. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas July 272026

3/3