Pelko v. Stith

District Court, S.D. Texas

Pelko v. Stith

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 13, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JOHN D PELKO, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00296 § DAVID STITH, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE On February 8, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss Case” (D.E. 31). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002- 13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

434 F.3d 303, 308

(5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

79 F.3d 1415, 1420

(5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 31), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, e Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims against Sheriff Hooper are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; e Plaintiff's various claims against Judge Stith, Assistant District Attorney Reyes, and Sheriff Hooper — in connection with challenging the validity of his conviction and 20-year sentence in Case No. 21-FC-1523G — are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous until such time as Plaintiff satisfies the conditions set forth in Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477

(1994); and e Plaintiff's remaining claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous, for failure to state a claim for relief, or on immunity grounds. The Court further ORDERS that this dismissal counts as a “STRIKE” for purposes of

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(g), and INSTRUCTS the Clerk of Court to send notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at Three_Strikes @txs.uscourts.gov.

ORDERED on March 13, 2024. leh GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Reference

Status
Unknown