Jones v. Jefferson County District Attorney Office et al

Filing 45

Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, OVERRULES the Plaintiff's objections 44 and DENIES Plaintiff's motion 42 . Signed by District Judge Michael J. Truncale on 6/4/2024. (KMH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
WILLIAM CURTIS JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-CV-212

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A final judgment was previously entered in this case, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s
federal law claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because they
are frivolous. [Dkt. 31]. Plaintiff filed motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which
were construed by this court as motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). [Dkts 33,
34, 35]. Said motions were denied on the merits on August 15, 2022. [Dkt. 37].
Twenty months after the judgment became final, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. [Dkt. 42]. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this case construed the Motion for
Reconsideration as another motion filed under Rule 60(b). In her Report and Recommendation,
the Magistrate Judge recommended denying the construed motion under Rule 60(b) as it was
untimely filed. [Dkt. 43].
Plaintiff’s motion argued for relief from the final judgment based upon mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. As pointed out by the Magistrate Judge such
arguments in a Rule 60(b) motion must be filed within one year of the final judgment. As
Plaintiff’s motion was filed 20 months after the judgment became final, said motion was not timely
1

and should be denied. [Dkt. 43]. On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report
and Recommendation.
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); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). “Parties filing
objections must specially 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 1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Plaintiff’s objections fail to specifically identify the findings or recommendations to which
he objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. TEX. CIV. R. CV-72(c).
Instead, he states in a conclusive manner that the Magistrate Judge made material errors and
misinterpretations, asserts the Report and Recommendation is in direct conflict with the law or is
clearly flawed, claims that the Report disregards his right to a fair trial, and claims the Magistrate
Judge is guilty of bias.
Except for the new unsupported claim of bias by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s
objections are a rehash of his previous arguments that his criminal conviction is based on false
evidence, although now he adds an argument regarding a faulty indictment. Plaintiff’s arguments
and objections regarding his criminal conviction have previously been dismissed as barred by Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In his newest objections, he continues to not address the Heck
bar, nor does he address the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his motion was untimely.
Regarding his objection as to the alleged bias of the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s objection
is wholly unsupported and lacks specificity.

2

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings
and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit because the objections are not related to specific
findings within the Report and Recommendation and the Magistrate Judge properly found that
Plaintiff’s construed Motion under Rule 60(b) was untimely.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
OVERRULES the Plaintiff’s objections [dkt. 44] and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion [dkt. 42].
SIGNED this 4th day of June, 2024.

____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge

3