Allen v. Collier

USNOIUTETDH ESRTNA TDEISS TDRIISCTTR IOCFT T CEOXUARST September 26, 2025 CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

DANNY ALLEN, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00111 § BRIAN COLLIER, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION On September 5, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R, D.E. 34), recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff has not complied with the Magistrate Judge’s Order to File Amended Complaint (D.E. 20) and Order to Show Cause (D.E. 25). Since the M&R was issued, Plaintiff has filed a number of documents,1 none of which contain proper objections to the M&R: • “Habeas Corpus, Corruption, Obstruction, Injunction” (D.E. 39); • “Deprivation of Civil Rights, Civil Rights Claim” (D.E. 41); • “Habeas Corpus Emancipation Proclamation” (D.E. 44); and • “Advisory Objection” (D.E. 45).

Each of Plaintiff’s documents include words, phrases, legal propositions, and/or case The Court does not address other filings that the Magistrate Judge struck. See D.E. 36, 37, 38. Neither does the Court address post-M&R motions that the Magistrate Judge denied as premature. See D.E. 40, 42, 43, 47.

1 / 2 citations, much of which are relevant to the plight of a transexual inmate. They blend concepts of civil rights, habeas corpus, evidentiary subpoenas, and summary judgment procedure.

However, there is no statement of a coherent proposition of any kind. There is no claim against any particular individual and no identification of any error in any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or holdings.

An objection must point out with particularity the alleged error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Otherwise, it does not constitute a proper objection and will not be considered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003); Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993) (finding that right to de novo review is not invoked when a petitioner merely reurges arguments contained in the original petition). To the extent that Plaintiff attempted to state an objection to the M&R, it is OVERRULED.

Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo disposition of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation to which objections were specifically directed, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

ORDERED on September 26, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2