Esquivel v. The State of Texas

District Court, W.D. Texas

Esquivel v. The State of Texas

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C FILED T COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ——->°Pt¢Mber 28, 2023 SAN ANTONIO DIVISION WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ROBERT JAMES ESQUIVEL, § py NM § DEPUTY Plaintiff, § § v. § § THE STATE OF TEXAS, OFFICE OF § CIVIL NO. SA-23-CV-00573-OLG THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; CITY § OF SAN ANTONIO, CITY OF SAN § ANTONIO ATTORNEY; SAN § ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT, § ROLANDO PACHENCO, OFFICER § BADGE #594, § § Defendants. § ORDER Before the Court is the above-captioned action, which was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer for the disposition of pro se Plaintiff Robert Esquivel’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b) Magistrate Judge Farrer issued a report and recommendation (R&R) concerning Esquivel’s proposed complaint. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 12, Aug. 8, 2023.) Esquivel was served with a copy of the R&R (see Dkt. No. 14, Aug. 15, 2023) and timely filed his objections (see Dkt. No. 16, Aug. 29, 2023). When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court conducts a de novo review as to those portions of the recommendation to which an objection is made. U.S. v. Wilson,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(Sth 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). Esquivel’s filing fails to present a clear objection to the R&R. (See generally Dkt. No. 16.) The Court has nevertheless reviewed the entire report de novo and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Farrer’s R&R

(Dkt. No. 12) is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders, see FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and for failure to state a non-frivolous claim, see

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e). It is further ORDERED that all other pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. This case is CLOSED. It is so AS SIGNED this day of September, 2023.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown