Meeks v. Ray

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00237
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION JAMES ARTHUR MEEKS, #543366 § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22cv237 § TONY RAY, ET AL. § MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (the “Report”) in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On April 7, 2025, the Report (Dkt. #304) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. ##151, 154, 169, 177, 178, 179, 212, 215, 259, 263) be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Plaintiff not be given leave to amend and that this dismissal count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff filed objections. (Dkt. #306). Defendants have responded to the objections. (Dkt. ##314, 316). In the objections, Plaintiff reurges the issues raised in his fourth amended complaint and rehashes the arguments raised in his responses and sur-replies submitted in connection with Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court has reviewed the tendered objections, and they generally add nothing new to Plaintiff’s prior contentions in this case. “An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate judge’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” Talbert v. Lynch, No. PE:16-CV-00018-RAJ, 2017 WL 11236935, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2017) (quoting Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004)) addressed in the report do not justify de novo review.” Torgerson v. Henderson County, No. 6:21-CV-390-JDK-JDL, 2022 WL 1204774, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2022) (citing United States v. Morales, 947 F. Supp. 2d 166, 171 (D.P.R. 2013) (“Even though timely objections to a report and recommendation entitle the objecting party to de novo review of the findings, ‘the district court should be spared the chore of traversing ground already plowed by the

Magistrate.’”) (internal citations omitted)). Despite his arguments, Plaintiff fails to show that the Report is in error or that he is entitled to relief. The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. Having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff to the Report, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. ##151, 154, 169, 177, 178, 179, 212, 215, 259, 263) are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s lawsuit is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It is further ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this civil action. IT IS SO ORDERED.