Johnson v. Samaniego et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 21 Memorandum and Recommendations. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Court ORDERS that this case counts as a "STRIKE". (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified. (var2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ALEX BERNARD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
VS.
PLACIDO SAMANIEGO, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

November 22, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00060

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint (D.E. 1) for initial screening under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2),
1915A. On October 8, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R, D.E. 21), recommending that Plaintiff’s case
be dismissed and counted as a strike. The M&R was placed in the mail to Plaintiff on that
date. Docket Sheet notation of Clerk of Court of October 8, 2024.
Plaintiff received notice of the M&R in the mail as of October 15, 2024. D.E. 22.1
Objections are due within fourteen (14) days after service of the M&R. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). Plaintiff filed his objections (D.E. 23) on November 1, 2024, by placing them
into the prison mail system on that date. D.E. 23, p. 3. His objections are not timely and
may be overruled on that basis, alone.

1

See https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?qtc_tLabels1=70033110000208700842.

1/2

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the objections and finds that they simply rehash
the arguments that the Magistrate Judge properly rejected, without pointing out any specific
error in the M&R’s analysis. An objection must point out with particularity the alleged
error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Otherwise, it does not constitute a proper
objection and will not be considered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara v. Garber, 353
F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003); Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993)
(finding that right to de novo review is not invoked when a petitioner merely re-urges
arguments contained in the original petition).
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiff’s
objections, and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo
disposition of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation
to which objections were specifically directed, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s
objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Court ORDERS
that this case counts as a “STRIKE” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of
Court is INSTRUCTED to send notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three
Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at [e-mail].
ORDERED on November 22, 2024.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2/2