Phillip Lumar Lowe v. Katumba Hadad

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00466 Phillip Lumar Lowe, Plaintiff, V. Katumba Hadad, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued defendant for al- leged violations of his constitutional rights and for defamation.

Doc. 4 at 4. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who is- sued a report recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 7 at 6.

Plaintiff timely filed written objections. Doc. 10.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a notice seeking to dismiss this law- suit. Doc. 11. The notice was unsigned. See zd. The magistrate judge issued a notice of deficiency and ordered plaintiff to sign and refile the notice within seven days. Doc. 12. Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, plaintiff filed a notice asking to reopen his case, a motion to appoint counsel, additional objections to the report and recommendation, and a request for a temporary restraining order.

Docs. 14, 15, 16, 17. None of those documents corrected the defi- ciency in plaintiff’s notice seeking dismissal; therefore, plaintiff has not dismissed his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Vettles ». Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th -l- Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en- title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis- trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). When there have been no timely objections to a report, or the objections are improper, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment.

In his timely filed objections, plaintiff objects that his allega- tions are factual, that the incident placed stress on his family and caused him to miss educational opportunities, and that he must now live with the false but cleared conviction on his record. Docs.

10, 10-1. These objections largely repeat allegations in his com- plaint and fail to engage with the report’s reasoning. Thus, these objections are without merit.

Plaintiff also objects that his crime is not comparable to tam- pering with a lock. Doc. 10 at 2. The report stated that plaintiff’s aggravated-robbery conviction likely makes him “‘libel-proof’ . . . with regard to being accused of tampering with a lock.” Doc. 7 at 5. But the report did not resolve that question and gave other in- dependent reasons for recommending that the court decline to ex- ercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim for def- amation. See id. at 5–6. Therefore, even if plaintiff’s objection is correct, he fails to show why the court should exercise supple- mental jurisdiction over any state-law claim for defamation.

Last, plaintiff objects that defendant is not immune and may have falsified citizenship documents. Doc. 10-1 at 2. Defendant’s immunity from suit and his citizenship status are not at issue in the report. Those objections lack merit.

Even if plaintiff’s second response to the report (Doc. 16) were timely, it provides no grounds for rejecting the report’s find- ings or recommendations. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that he was falsely charged and convicted of a prison disciplinary offense that was later overturned. Doc. 4 at 3-4. The report ex- plained why these allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See generally Doc. 7. Plaintiff’s second re- sponse to the report alleges that he is suffering from various phys- ical conditions and injuries, appears to complain about who is serving him food, and repeats his allegations against defendant.

Doc. 16; see also Doc. 17 (repeating allegations). None of that en- gages with the report’s reasoning, much less identifies the specific findings to which plaintiff objects. Therefore, insofar as plain- tiff’s second response to the report states objections to the report, those objections are overruled as improper.

Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo and be- ing satisfied that there is no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s objections and accepts the report’s findings and recommenda- tions. All federal claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2). To the extent that plaintiff asserted any state-law claims, those claims are dismissed without prejudice as to plaintiff’s ability to pursue those claims in state court. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

So ordered by the court on March 12, 2026.

Conlrke, —_facbok BARKER United States District Judge -3-