Puebla v. Ford Motor Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 07, 2025 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION NM BY: ________________________________ DEPUTY ROBERTO PUEBLA, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § NO. SA-25-CV-00476-OLG-HJB § FORD MOTOR COMPANY and § CAVENDER GRANDE FORD, § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed June 11, 2025, concerning Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Strike Removal and Recognize Continued State Court Jurisdiction Due to Fraud (Dkt. No. 17) and Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 20). (See R&R, Dkt. No. 23.)

A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, was electronically served with a copy of the R&R on June 12, 2025 (see Dkt.

No. 23) and timely filed objections on June 13, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 24).1 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. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need 1The document containing Plaintiff’s objections is entitled “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Injunctive Relief, and Objection to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. [No.] 23) with Motion to Vacate Void Removal, Strike Filings Under Rule 11, and Demand for Immediate Judicial Review.” (Dkt. No. 24.) To the extent that Plaintiff seeks a TRO “halting all actions based on the void removal” (see Dkt. No. 24 at 2), his request is DENIED for the reasons stated in the R&R. not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth 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.

The Court has reviewed the entirety of the R&R de novo and finds that it is in all things correct. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Bemporad’s R&R and, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Strike Removal and Recognize Continued State Court Jurisdiction Due to Fraud (Dkt. No. 17) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 20) are DENIED.

It isso ORDERED.

SIGNED this 7th day of July 2025.

Sr: ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge