Olga Alcantara v. David Trujillo

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

OLGA ALCANTARA, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-26-CV-821-KC § DAVID TRUJILLO, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered the case. On April 9, 2026, the Court referred Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“Motion”), ECF No. 5, to United States Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castañeda. Apr. 9, 2026, Text Order. On April 16, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 7, granting the Motion and recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Parties have fourteen days from service of a Report and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). On April 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed her objections to the R&R, arguing that her Complaint alleges improper conduct by Defendant and plausibly states a claim. Objs. R&R 2–3, ECF No. 9. She also “clarif[ies] key factual allegations” and notifies the Court of her intent to amend her Complaint. Id. at 1, 4. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of [a magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”); Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688, 694 (5th Cir. 2000). To the extent Plaintiff objects to the R&R on the basis that there are additional or clarified factual allegations that were not pled in the Complaint that state a claim, this is not a proper basis to object. See Objs. R&R 2–4. As for Plaintiff’s objections based on the allegations

pled in the Complaint, upon de novo review, the Court finds that the allegations in the Complaint failed to state a claim, essentially for the same reasons stated in the R&R. The R&R correctly determined that Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant “instructed [her] to . . . submit[] correspondence directly to the Court,” without allegations that Defendant advised her to submit that correspondence ex parte, failed to allege improper conduct, let alone conduct amounting to a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See R&R 3. In addition, the R&R properly found Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the underlying claim, which was allegedly dismissed due to her ex parte communication, insufficient to state an access-to-court claim. See R&R 4. As an access-to-court claim requires a plaintiff to state the underlying claim in accordance with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See id. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 7, in its entirety, and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may FILE an amended complaint, and must do so by no later than May 26, 2026. Plaintiff is WARNED that failure to file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies may result in dismissal with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

2 SO ORDERED. SIGNED this Sth day of May, 2026.

K ARDONE UNIFED STATES DISTRICT GE