MARK ANTHONY TROXLER v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, ET AL.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION MARK ANTHONY TROXLER CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-1529 VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. DENIS MCDONOUGH, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY MEMORANDUM RULING Before the Court are two Appeals of a Magistrate Judge Decision filed by Plaintiff, Mark Anthony Troxler (“Troxler”). See Record Documents 23 and 27. For the reasons stated below, both Appeals are DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge’s Orders are AFFIRMED.

LAW AND ANALYSIS I. Applicable Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter. The ruling must be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This is a highly deferential standard.

The Court must affirm unless it is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. See Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995).

II. Analysis a. Record Document 23: Appeal of Consolidation Order The Magistrate Judge consolidated this case with related litigation pursuant to Rule 42(a) based on overlapping factual and legal issues. Consolidation is a non-dispositive matter committed to the Magistrate Judge’s discretion. Troxler’s appeal largely reiterates previously raised venue arguments and expresses disagreement with consolidation. He has not demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge misapplied Rule 42 or made any clearly erroneous factual finding. The Appeal at Record Document 23 is DENIED. b. Record Document 27: Appeal of Denial of Transfer Troxler appeals the denial of his request for entry of default. The Magistrate Judge concluded that service had not been properly effected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), which governs service upon the United States and its officers. Without proper service, default under Rule 55 is unavailable as a matter of law. Troxler has not shown that the Magistrate Judge’s service determination was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The appeal at Record Document 27 is DENIED.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, both of Troxler’s appeals of decisions of the Magistrate Judge are DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge’s decisions are AFFIRMED.

An order consistent with this ruling shall issue herewith.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 20th day of February, 2026.

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT