Robinson v. Escorza

FILED March 11, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us. pistricr court WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY. NM DEPUTY CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL NO. SA-23-CV-00734-OLG-HJB § V. ESCORZA, K. GARZA, and § ALAMO HEIGHTS POLICE § DEPARTMENT, § § Defendants. § ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed January 2, 2024, concerning the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants V. Escorza and K. Garza. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 15.)

A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff's pro se response to the R&R—submitted via email to Judge Bemporad’s chambers—was filed on January 11, 2024 (see Dkt. No. 18), pursuant to Judge Bemporad’s Order dated January 16, 2024 (see Dkt. No. 17).

When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. □□□□ P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Batile v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.

Plaintiffs response to the R& R—a one-page document entitled, “Order”—does not present any specific or non-frivolous objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. As such, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. The Court has thus reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 15) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants V. Escorza and K. Garza’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to amend his complaint within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of this Order.

It isso ORDERED.

SIGNED this Ale day of March, 2024.

OYA ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge 9d