Robert James Magnuson v. Dewitt County

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED August 19, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION ROBERT JAMES MAGNUSON, § Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:26-CV-00043 DEWITT COUNTY, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDA & RECOMMENDATIONS Before the Court are Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memoranda and Recommendations (“M&R”). (D.E. 10); (D.E. 18). The D.E. 10 M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, deny leave to amend, and impose a “strike” under 28 ULS.C. § 1915(g). (D.E. 10, p. 10). The D.E. 18 M&R recommends that the Court deny leave to amend. (D.E. 18, p. 1). Plaintiff filed written objections to the D.E. 10 M&R. (D.E. 12). 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 v. 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.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly

1/2

erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir. 1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).! After considering Plaintiff's objections and reviewing the M&Rs de novo, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 12), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&Rs. (D.E. 10); (D.E. 18). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend, (D.E. 13); (D.E. 14); DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, (D.E. 1), IMPOSES a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and INSTRUCTS the Clerk to send notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov. The Court will enter a final jud t separately. SO ORDERED.

DAVI ORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas August 14/3026 ' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. The Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s decision apply with equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order’; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted). 2/2