November 21, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

JOEY DOUGLAS MARTIN, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-04251 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § ABM FACILITY SERVICES, §

Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDA AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin proceeds here pro se. He filed a complaint asserting violations of the Texas Payday Law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dkt 1 at 3. He also brings a claim for conversion under Texas law. Ibid. Plaintiff’s claims stem from Defendant ABM Facility Services garnishing his wages. Id at ¶2. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). Dkt 7. Plaintiff filed motions for “declaratory judgment regarding unlawful waiver of constitutional rights” and for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Dkts 11 & 12. The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan. Dkt 13. Judge Bryan issued a Memorandum and Recommendation in which she recommended that the motion by Defendant to dismiss be granted and the motion by Plaintiff for declaratory judgment be denied. Dkt 14. She there recommends that Plaintiff’s claim under

be dismissed with prejudice and that his state law claims be dismissed without prejudice. Id at 9–10. Judge Bryan then issued a second Memorandum and Recommendation in which she recommended that the motion by Plaintiff for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order be denied. Dkt 15. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) &

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc,

(5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association,

(5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). Plaintiff filed several documents following entry of the Memoranda and Recommendations. See Dkts 16, 17 & 18. Of these, only his “notice of non-consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge” appears, liberally construed, as an objection. Dkt 18. Upon de novo review and determination, Plaintiff’s objections lack merit. Plaintiff indicates that he doesn’t consent to a Magistrate Judge conducting any proceedings in this action. Id at 1. But a Magistrate Judge may issue recommendations regarding any motion upon referral by this Court under

(b)(1). That is different than consent, as referral still involves final oversight by an Article III Judge. The objections by Plaintiff to the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 18. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the Memoranda and Recommendations, the record, and the applicable law. The Memoranda and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkts 14 & 15. The motion by Defendant ABM Facility Services to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 7. The motions by Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin for declaratory judgment and for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order are DENIED. Dkts 11 & 12. The claims by Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin asserted under

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The claims by Plaintiff Joey Douglas Martin asserted under state law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent that any other filing by Plaintiff may be construed as a motion, it is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkts 16 & 17. This is a FINAL JUDGMENT. SO ORDERED. Signed on November 18, 2025, at Houston, Texas. ( (LE Lsidhe on. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge