Adams v. United States Postal Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 26, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ALEX ADAMS, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00076 § UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et § al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s “motion for injunction” and to present exhibits; and a “motion for order to reinstate injunction.” D.E. 65, 66. On August 7, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (M&R, D.E. 70), recommending that both motions be denied. Plaintiff timely filed his objections (D.E. 72) on August 16, 2023.

Plaintiff’s objections assert the same arguments previously rejected by this Court.

He does not point out with particularity any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and the objections are therefore insufficient. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003); Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that right to de novo review is not invoked when a petitioner merely reurges arguments previously asserted and rejected).

1 / 2 Plaintiff also offers copies of his grievances as new evidence. However, he fails to show how these documents could not have been provided with due diligence prior to the Court’s final judgment in this case. Therefore, they do not support a postjudgment Rule motion.

Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiff’s objections, and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo disposition of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation to which objections were specifically directed, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions (D.E. 65, 66) are DENIED.

ORDERED on September 26, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2