William Kent McIlyar v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED . July 20, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION WILLIAM KENT MCILYAR, § Plaintiff, : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00291 CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, : Defendant. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 73). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s moron for summary judgment, (DE. 42), and dismiss Plaintiffs claims. (D.E. 73, p. 1). 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 pone deecw eer v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous, conclusive or general obj ections 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 ich 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 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to

1/2

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&R de novo, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 75), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of M&R. (D.E. 73). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 42), and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims. The Court will enter a final judgment separately.

DAVID RALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas july 264026

' 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