Erick Scott Black Wood-Head v. United States of America

Southern District of Texas ENTERED April 27, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ERICK SCOTT BLACK WOOD-HEAD, § Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00121 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (D.E. 48), The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's third motion to reopen the case, (D.E. 45). (D.E. 48, p. 6). Plaintiff filed written objections. (D.E.

50).

When a party objects to the findigs and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of these 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.” Bartle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

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 1/2 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir. 1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt, Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment),!

After considering Plaintiff's objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 50), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R. (D.E. 48). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs third Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the case, (D.E. 45). The Court further WARNS Plaintiff that the filing of future motions that the Court finds are baseless, frivolous, or without merit, may result in the imposition of sanctions against him.

SO ORDERED.

DAV . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas April 27026 Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. Although the M&R is at the complaint-screening stage and not summary judgment, the Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s decision apply with equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order”; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court had a complete record of the magistrate’s proceedings.” See id, (citations omitted).

2/2