Hidalgo v. State of Texas

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 3 Memorandum and Recommendations. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified. (jmg4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
August 30, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MICHAEL HIDALGO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendant.

§ CIVIL ACTION NO
§ 4:24-cv-02098
§
§
§ JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael Hidalgo filed this action labeled as
“Petition for Review Appellant’s Appeal From the Adverse
Actions of the Supreme Court of Texas in Violation of his
Constitutional Rights.” Dkt 1.
Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by
Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan, recommending that
this case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction because this federal court has no
jurisdiction to review the decision of the Texas Supreme
Court rejecting Hidalgo’s “Writ of Error Coram Nobis.”
Dkt 3.
Plaintiff filed objections, arguing that he has been
denied his constitutional right to due process of law and
other rights, which he argues as a requirement of the
federal court to hear his case. Dkt 5.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no

clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Upon de novo review and determination, Hidalgo’s
objections lack merit. Without clear explanation, the
objections largely address the merits of his claims, which
were not reached by the Magistrate Judge upon finding a
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. To the extent the
objections address the jurisdictional findings of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, they are without
merit for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge.
Hidalgo presents no authority supporting federal
jurisdiction over appeal of a state court order denying a
petition for writ of error coram nobis.
The
objections
to
the
Memorandum
and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 5.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 3.
This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on August 28, 2024, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge

2