Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00182
01-30-2023
PATRICK DENNIS HOSTETTER, Plaintiff, v. ARANSAS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
DAVID S. MORALES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton's Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), entered on December 12, 2022. (D.E. 18). The M&R recommends that the Court DISMISS with prejudice Plaintiff Patrick Hostetter's claims against all named defendants-Aransas County, and Armando Chapa, Jason Andrade, Joshua Doane, and Manuel Solis in their official and individual capacities-as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Id. at 1. The M&R further recommends that the dismissal of this case count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Id. at 2. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the M&R. (D.E. 23); see (D.E. 21).
When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(B)(3) (“THE DISTRICT JUDGE MUST DETERMINE DE NOVO ANY PART OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISPOSITION THAT HAS BEEN PROPERLY OBJECTED TO.”). IN OBJECTING, PLAINTIFF SEEMINGLY ATTEMPTS TO RE-ARGUE THE MERITS OF HIS CLAIMS. See (D.E. 23). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Plaintiff's objections were directed, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court:
(1) OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections in their entirety. (D.E. 23).
(2) ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 18).
(3) DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Aransas County, and Armando Chapa, Jason Andrade, Joshua Doane, and Manuel Solis in their individual and official capacities as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
(4) This dismissal is counted as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and 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 Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
SO ORDERED.