Ozzy New v. Sheriff Oscar Rivera

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00179
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 20, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT athan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION OZZY NEW, § § Petitioner, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00179 § SHERIFF OSCAR RIVERA, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 7). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. /d. at 1. Petitioner has filed several written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 11); (D.E. 12); (D-E. 13). After review, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 11); (D.E. 12); (D.E. 13), and ADOPTS in whole the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 7). 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 y. 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 v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1416 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded 1/3

by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). Petitioner has submitted three letters to the Court in response to the M&R. (D.E. 11); (D.E. 12); (D.E. 13). Each letter argues continued problems and grievances with his underlying state- court proceedings, and none addresses the M&R’s conclusion that the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims because he seeks to resolve issues related to his ongoing state criminal case and this Court’s intervention would necessarily interfere with the state court’s ability to conduct its own proceedings. (D.E. 7, p. 4). Put differently, the M&R recommends dismissing Petitioner’s claims until the state-court proceedings which he seeks to attack have concluded. See id. Petitioner has not articulated any flaw in that conclusion, and the Court agrees with the M&R’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections. Petitioner must first litigate his claims in state court. Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Petitioner’s objections are directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, (D.E. 11); (D.E. 12); (D.E. 13), and ADOPTS in whole the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 7). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, (D.E. 1). The Court will enter final judgment separately.

2/3

SO ORDERED.

DA RALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas October?24*2025

3/3