Sherman Wilson v. Priscilla Chavez

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

SHERMAN WILSON, § No. 1:25-CV-1444-DAE § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § PRISCILLA CHAVEZ, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane on October 28, 2025. (Dkt. # 5.) Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After reviewing the Recommendation and the information contained in the record, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2025, Plaintiff Sherman Wilson (“Plaintiff” or “Wilson”) filed suit against Austin Police Department (“APD”) employee, Priscilla Chavez (“Defendant” or “Chavez”). (Dkt. # 1.) As Judge Lane describes, this lawsuit is the fifth pro se lawsuit Wilson has brought related to his arrest by Austin Police Department (“APD”) officers on June 23, 2022. See Wilson v. APD, No. 1:23-cv-233-RP; Wilson v. Codero (I), No. 1:23-cv-1265-DAE; Wilson v. Cilento,

No. 1:24-cv-1047-ADA; Wilson v. Codero (II), No. 1:25-cv-1110-ADA.1 In the instant Complaint, Wilson alleges that discovery he previously sought in a separate case, what the undersigned understands to be Codero (I), No.

1:23-cv-1265-DAE, was tampered with or altered. (Dkt. # 1 at 4–5.) He alleges that Chavez violated his constitutional rights by “knowingly and willingly” altering or tampering with evidence “to deceive this Plaintiff [and] this Court [from] the right to a fair Trial.” (Id. at 5.) More specifically, Wilson alleges that Chavez

tampered with evidence by producing a flash drive that included a “picture obtained from a video that is very incriminating and did not include the actual video that picture came [from].” (Id.) Wilson seeks “25 million dollars for

[Chavez’s] act of deception.” (Id. at 6.) After review, the Magistrate Judge granted Lucero’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. # 5 at 1.) The Magistrate Judge also reviewed Wilson’s pro se Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and recommended

dismissing the suit. (Id. at 2–5.) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation was

1 “A court may take judicial notice of related proceedings and records in cases before the same court.” MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Flintkote Co., 760 F.2d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 1985). served on Wilson in November 2025. (Dkt. # 7.) Wilson has filed no objections to the Recommendation.

DISCUSSION Where, as here, none of the parties objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings, the Court reviews the Recommendation for clear error. United States v.

Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After careful consideration, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Lane’s analysis and finds it is reasonable and absent of clear error. In his Recommendation, Judge Lane found that Wilson failed to

allege an injury in the instant suit because he had failed to show how the production of this flash drive injured him. (Dkt. # 5 at 5 (explaining that Wilson had not shown that the “incriminating” photo affected the outcome of Codero (I)

and noting that his pending litigation against a different APD Officer, Officer Cilento, was still ongoing).) The Court agrees with Judge Lane’s conclusions. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lane’s Recommendation. CONCLUSION

For the reasons given, the Court ADOPTS U.S. Magistrate Judge Lane’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 5) and DISMISSES Wilson’s claims WITH PRJEUDICE under § 1915(e)(2). The Court will therefore DISMISS AS

MOOT Wilson’s motion to consolidate this case with Cilento, No. 1:24-CV-1047. If Wilson has objections related to the discovery conducted in Cilento, he may raise those objections in that case. The Clerk’s Office is hereby INSTRUCTED to CLOSE the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Austin, Texas, April 30, 2026.

Hon. David Alan Ezra Senior U.S. District Judge