Miller v. Wallace

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00400 Benjamin Miller, Plaintiff, V. Sammual Wallace et al., Defendants. ORDER Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this civil-rights suit alleging violations of his constitu- tional rights. Doc. 12. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that the court dismiss plain- tiff’s lawsuit with prejudice as frivolous. Doc. 24 at 4. The report explained that plaintiff’s allegations that he was “brainwashed” and that defendants tried to force him “to see” himself as “a glu- ten, homosexual,” as well as the attachments to his complaint, show that his complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Jd. at 3-4. Plaintiff timely filed written objections. Doc. 26. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Vettles ». Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass vy. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en- title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis- trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). When the objections are im- proper, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear -l- error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Plaintiff identifies no error in the report. In his objections, he swears repeatedly and makes sarcastic remarks about the report’s characterization of his claims as irrational. See generally Doc. 26. Plaintiff also raises incoherent arguments about his past, his con- viction, and his “fight for people in the human trafficking indus- try.” Id. Nowhere does he engage with the report’s reasoning or identify the specific findings he objects to. Plaintiff’s objections are improper and are overruled. Having reviewed the record and being satisfied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommen- dations. All claims in this matter are dismissed with prejudice. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on March 5, 2026. j! CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge -2-