Albert v. Department of the Army

Case: 25-51030 Document: 30-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED June 12, 2026 No. 25-51030 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ____________ Monte Albert, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus United States Department of the Army; Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG); United States Army; Inspector General (IG), United States Army; Unnamed Army officers, recruiters, and officials, in official and individual capacities, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:25-CV-1497 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Plaintiff-Appellant Monte Albert, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case with prejudice after the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and its subsequent denials of _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-51030 Document: 30-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2026

No. 25-51030 his motions to vacate and/or reconsider. Albert alleges that the district court prematurely dismissed his pro se complaint, failed to consider his claims with liberal construction, overlooked his objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendation, and improperly barred him from future filings other than direct appeal.

While Albert offers sweeping theories of various alleged errors below—with particular attention to whether the district court prematurely terminated a pro se suit deserving liberal construction—we disagree. Our review of the record demonstrates that the report and recommendation adequately engaged with the merits of Albert’s complaint. Moreover, beyond generic rule clusters, Albert cites no compelling case law or persuasive precedent that remotely advances his novel theory of injury under the Feres doctrine. And while the district court’s consideration of Albert’s objections could have been more detailed, we find no reversible error warranting the relief that Albert seeks on review.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.