Ferguson v. Dunn et al

Filing 218

ORDER overruling pltf's objections and adopting 212 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the magistrate judges Report and RecommendationDenying Motion for Reconsideration (Doc No 212) remains adopted, Fergusons Motion to Amend Final Judgment (Doc No 210) remains denied, and any other pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 6/3/19. (tkd, )

Case 1:16-cv-00272-MAC-ZJH Document 218 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RALPH LYNN FERGUSON JR,
Plaintiff,
versus
ERIC MARCINE DUNN, CHARLES
WILLIS, JOSH BECKMAN, BRANDON
THURMAN,
TIMOTHY
WAYNE
CORKERN,
STEVE
HOLLOWAY,
PARVIN BUTLER, ANGIE BROWN,
PETE
PATRICK,
GWEN
KELLY,
CONNIE . SMITH, LINDA PITTS,
ASHLEY MORROW, ROBERT SHANE
HILTON,
COURTNEY
TRACY
PONTHIER, CRAIG M MIXSON, J KEITH
STANLEY,
Defendants.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00272-MAC

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 29, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn recommended denying
pro se Plaintiff Ralph Lynn Ferguson Jr.’s “Motion to Amend Final Judgment.” Doc. No. 210.
Thereafter, on April 23, 2019, the court adopted Judge Hawthorn’s report (Doc. No. 212) after the
objection period elapsed and no objections had been filed. Doc. No. 213.
On May 1, 2019, Ferguson filed an “Emergency Pro-Se Motion to Void [213] Order
Adopting Report and Recommendations,” arguing that he had not timely received the magistrate
judge’s report by certified mail within the objection period. Doc. No. 214. On May 8, 2019, Judge
Hawthorn denied Ferguson’s emergency motion as moot because the court granted Ferguson leave

Case 1:16-cv-00272-MAC-ZJH Document 218 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2014

to file his objections to the report. Doc. No. 215. On May 28, 2019, Ferguson filed his objections
to the report. Doc. No. 217.
A party who files timely, written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
“Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object].
Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles
v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
After reviewing Ferguson’s objections, the court finds that the objections are without merit.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s “Report and Recommendation
Denying Motion for Reconsideration” (Doc. No. 212) remains ADOPTED, Ferguson’s “Motion
to Amend Final Judgment” (Doc. No. 210) remains DENIED, and that any other pending motions
are DENIED as moot.

Signed this date
Jun 3, 2019

2 of 2