Hill v. Haren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 11, 2023 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION PT BY: ________________________________ CEDRIC EARL HILL, § DEPUTY § Plaintiff, § § v. § § DETECTIVE JORDAN HAREN, § OFFICER ERNEST VENEGAS, § CIVIL NO. SA:20-CV-00985-OLG OFFICER SHANE PRINCE, OFFICER § K. VIESCA, CITY OF PLEASANTON, § PLEASANTON POLICE § DEPARTMENT, CHIEF ROLAND § SANCHEZ, § § Defendants. § ORDER This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Dkt.

No. 39.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) with respect to the Motion. (See Dkt. No. 46.) Specifically, the R&R recommends that Defendants’ Motion be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed his objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 50.)

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court must make a de novo determination as to those portions of the recommendation to which an objection is made.

U.S. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections, however, need not be considered by the district court.

Battle v. U.S. Parole Com’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Here, Plaintiff has failed to present any specific objection to the matters addressed in the R&R.1 Nevertheless, the Court has conducted 1Plaintiff objects to the issuance of the R&R on the grounds that neither party gave consent to the Magistrate Judge. (See Dkt. No. 50.) However, consent is not required under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), which authorizes the issuance of an R&R with respect to a motion for summary judgment. an independent review of the recommendation, the record, and the applicable law and finds that the R&R correctly articulates and applies the facts and law.

It is therefore ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 46) is ACCEPTED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

This case is CLOSED.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 11th day of May, 2023.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge