Danny Allen v. Michael Crow, et al.

Southern District of Texas ENTERED January 09, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION DANNY ALLEN, § Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00225 MICHAEL CROW, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 70). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's remaining claims for want of prosecution due to her failure to identify and serve Lt. Jane Doe in a timely fashion.

Id. at 4.

After review, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 76), and ADOPTS in whole the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 70).

When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.).

Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by 1/2 Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1416 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

Since the M&R was docketed, Plaintiff has filed numerous documents. (D.E. 72); (D.E.

73); (D.E. 74); (D.E. 76). The documents neither describe with specificity any error in the M&R’s analysis, nor remedy the problem identified by the M&R. See generally (D.E. 72); (D.E. 73); □□□□ 74); (D.E. 76). To date, Plaintiff has been unable to identify Lt. Jane Doe, despite receiving extensive assistance from the Court, as detailed in the M&R. (D.E. 70, p. 1-4). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections and ADOPTS in whole the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 70). The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Lt. Jane Doe without prejudice for want of prosecution. At such time as Plaintiff can identify and properly serve Lt.

Jane Doe, she may re-file her claims. The Court will enter final judgment separately.

SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas January9¢*; 2026 2/2