Michael Steven Sickler v. Kilgore Police Department et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: November 12, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-00351
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00351 Michael Steven Sickler, Plaintiff, V. Kilgore Police Department et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, a prisoner confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 4. The magistrate judge issued an order directing plaintiff to ad- dress whether his allegations are barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations and if any tolling provision would apply to the late filing of his complaint. Doc. 6 at 2. The magistrate judge highlighted that plaintiff’s September 2024 complaint alleges a false arrest that occurred in April 2022. Plaintiff requested that the court “forgive” his tardy com- plaint because he was “having a hard time finding” information on how to start the process. Doc. 10 at 1. The magistrate judge issued a report, which concluded that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed as time-barred and found that plaintiff was not enti- tled to equitable tolling. Doc. 14 at 3-4. Plaintiff filed objections. Doc. 15. Plaintiff states that he objects to dismissing his case. Jd. at 1. He maintains that he only realized he “had legal action” one year after his release when a friend “brought it to [his] attention” and that the “other facts just made it hard to begin this suit.” Jd. (cleaned up). Plaintiff insists that he “did not know to file” his lawsuit. Jd. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.

-l-

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Vettles ». Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass vy. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en- title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis- trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff identifies no error in the magistrate judge’s report. See Doc. 15. The magistrate judge properly determined that plain- tiff’s claims, filed in September 2024 regarding his April 2022 ar- rest, are barred by the two-year statute of limitations—even if only by a few months. See Helton ». Clements, 832 F.2d 332, 334 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1988 are deemed analogous to Texas tort actions, and therefore, the applicable limitations period is . . . two years....”). Plaintiffis not entitled to equitable tolling. Ignorance of the law and lack of legal resources do not warrant equitable toll- ing. See Madis ». Edwards, 347 F. App’x 106, 108-09 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“unfamiliarity with the legal process and lack of representation are not grounds for equitable tolling” (cleaned up)). Thus, the court accepts the magistrate judge’s report and overrules plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s case is dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on November 12, 2025. Canbok —_flaebok BARKER United States District Judge

-2-