Stealth Onsite Solutions, LLC v. E&E, LLC

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED June 12, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

STEALTH ONSITE SOLUTIONS, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00294 § E&E, LLC, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 18). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 16), and dismiss Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Plaintiff filed written objections. (D.E. 19); (D.E. 20). Defendant responded. (D.E. 21). 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 USC.§ 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 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

1/2

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). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to expeditiously adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (5th 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 judge’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&R de novo, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, (D.E. 19); (D.E. 20), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 18). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (D.E. 16), and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims with prejudice. The Court will enter a final judgment separately. SO ORDERED.

DAV . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas June (275026

' 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