Pete v. United States Department of Treasury

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION

DAVID R. PETE, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-00068-MJT § UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF § TREASURY, UNITED STATES § ATTORNEY GENERAL, and UNITED § STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE § EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, § § Defendants. §

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges, the District Court referred this proceeding to the undersigned magistrate judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72. On June 17, 2025, the Court overruled Plaintiff David R. Pete’s objections [Dkt. 14] and adopted [Dkt. 15] the magistrate judge’s recommendations [Dkt. 12] to: (1) dismiss this case without prejudice because Pete failed to establish Article III standing; (2) deny Pete leave to amend for this jurisdictional divesture; and (3) issue a warning to Pete that filing frivolous lawsuits could result in a denial of his ability to proceed in forma pauperis, him being declared a vexatious litigant in this district and subjected to an order prohibiting him from filing lawsuits in this district without first obtaining permission from a district court, or both. The Court entered a corresponding final judgment [Dkt. 16] the same day. Three days later on June 20, 2025, Pete filed the pending Motion to Vacate Final Judgment, Reinstate All Claims and Motions, and Delete “Frivolous Remark” [Dkt. 17] asking the Court for threefold relief: (1) to delete the “‘frivolous lawsuit’ comment” in the order adopting [Dkt. 15] pursuant to Rule 60(a); (2) to vacate the final judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), (2), (3) and (6); and (3) to reinstate the amended complaint and restore all dismissed

motions. On July 1, 2025, the magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 19] advising the Court to deny Pete’s motion because he failed to carry his burden under either Rule 60(a) or (b). On July 10, 2025, Pete filed timely objections [Dkt. 20] to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 19]. I. Plaintiff David R. Pete’s Objections [Dkt. 20] to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 19] are Overruled

A party who timely files specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. “Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Pete’s “objections” are nothing more than a ménage of spurious claims, frivolous assertions, and conclusory arguments that do not engage with the magistrate judge’s report. See [Dkt. 20]. There is simply nothing susceptible to review, even with the benefit of liberal construction. Pete’s “[f]rivolous, conclusive[, and] general objections” are overruled. Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 1.8. Il. Order The court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff David R. Pete’s objections [Dkt. 20] consistent with the pleadings, briefing, and applicable law. See FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b). For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff David R. Pete’s objections [Dkt. 20] are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 19] is ADOPTED. Plaintiff David R. Pete’s Motion to Vacate Final Judgment, Reinstate All Claims and Motions, and Delete “Frivolous Remark” [Dkt. 17] is DENIED.

SIGNED this 11th day of July, 2025.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge