□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED January 04, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner. Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION MARLON DERRRILL BROOKS, § § Plaintiff, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00019 § CUERO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ef a/., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS Before the Court are Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (D.E. 16), and Supplemental M&R, (D.E. 23). Together, the M&Rs recommend that the Court: (1) retain Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim regarding the unlawful seizure of a cell phone; and (2) dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Chief Ellis for false arrest; and (3) dismiss with prejudice as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim all of Plaintiff's remaining claims. (D.E. 16, p. 15; D.E. 23, p. 7). Plaintiff filed written objections to the original M&R. (D.E. 18). However, Plaintiff's objections appear to be untimely.! When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp.,

, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). The

' The original M&R was issued April 6, 2023, and mailed to Plaintiff the same day. See (D.E. 16, p. 15— 16). The M&R provided notice that objections must be filed within fourteen days after service of the M&R. Id. at 16. Nonetheless, Plaintiff did not file his objections until May 9, 2023, and provided no explanation for filing the objections untimely. See (D.E. 18). 1/2

Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's objections and finds Plaintiff does not raise any issues “requiring amendment, modification, or rejection of any part of the [M&Rs].” Cooper v. Thaler, 2:12-CV-00174,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2013) (Ramos, J.) (adopting M&R over untimely objections). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R and the Supplemental M&R are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the original M&R and the Supplemental M&R in their entireties. (D.E. 16; D.E. 23). Accordingly: (1) Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim regarding the unlawful seizure of a cell phone is RETAINED; (2) Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Chief Ellis for false arrest is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous until such time as Plaintiff satisfies the conditions set forth in Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994). (3) All of Plaintiff's remaining claims are DI ISSED with udice. SO ORDERED.

DA ORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: vonnary ean .