Butler v. Arenivaz et al, No. 5:2020cv00143 - Document 17 (N.D. Tex. 2021)

Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge re: 13 Findings and Recommendations on re: 1 Complaint, filed by Marcus Quin Butler. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 6/16/2021) (lkw)

Download PDF

Butler v. Arenivaz et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION MARCUS QUIN BUTLER, Plaintiff, No. 5:2O-CV-143-H C ARENIVAZ, et a1., Defendants ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RICOMMENDATION OF THE UMTED STATES MA GISTRATE JT,'DGE United States Magistrate D. Gordon Bryant made Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (FCR) rn this case on March 9,2021. ,See a Dkt. No. 13. Judge Bryant recommended that the Court dismiss a1l of Butler's claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 51915. Id. Butler f,Ied his objections to Judge Bryant,s FCRonMarch 18,2021 andlune7,2021.1 Dkt.Nos. 14, 16. Afterrcviewingthe objections and the relevant filings, the Court finds that the objections shouid be overruled. "The district judge must determine de novo any parr of the magisrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 0 see 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). In confrast, the districtjudge reviews any unobjected-to proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. (J.5. ex rel. Steury t,. Cardinal Health, Inc., 735 F.3d 202, 205 (5th Cr. 2013) (" pllain error review applies when a paty did not object 1 Even though Butler filed his second set ofobjections after the 14-days deadline, the Court still considers those objections. The Fifth Circuit has stated that "district courts need not consider late objections" to an FCR. Scot v. Alford, No. 94-40486, 1995 WL 450216, at *2 (5th Cir. July 6, 1995). Therefore, it is within the discretion ofthe Court whether to consider late-filed objectiols. See Loredo v. Barnhart,2l0 F. App'x417, 418 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Rodriguez v. Bowen,85'1 F.2d215, 276 '17 (5th Cit. 1988)). Nevertheiess, the Court finds that consideration ofButler's late objections is in the interest ofjustice. Dockets.Justia.com to a magistrate judge's findings of fact, conclusions of 1aw, or recommend.ation to the district court, so long as the party was served with notice ofthe consequences of failing to object.") (citing Douglass y. United banc), Sens. Auto. supersede d on other grounds by Ass'n,79 F.3d 1415,1422 (sth Cir. 1996) (en 28 U .5.C. g 636(b)( 1)). c. Butler's objections restate the facts that he alleges in his complaint-that Arenivaz violated commitment-center rules and wrote him a false disciplinary case, that he did not receive a fair disciplinary hearing, and that he was not allowed back to his dorm during the pendency of his disciplinary charge. see id. ButJer additionally alleges that Arenivaz's false statements have caused his reputation to be tamished and that the defendants acted without care for his wellberng. Dkt. No. 14 at 1; Dkt. No. 16 at 2. Butler further states in his objections that he can show these facts at ajury trial and prove to the Court that his rights were violated. See Dkl No. 14 at 2; Dkt. No. 16 at 3. None of Butler's objections include any new material facts or dispute any specific legal conclusron. To the extent that Butler objects to the authenticated record cited in the FCR, the Court overrules the objection. In his FCR, Judge Bryant cited to authenticated records showing that officials held a disciplinary hearing for Butler where he and Arenivaz testified. Dkt. No. 13 at 8. Butler refers to the authenticated records in one of his objections staring that they clearly show that the defendants violated his rights. Dkt. No. 16 at 2. Because Butler also alleges in his complaint that he had a disciplinary hearing where he and Arenivaz testified, Dkt. No. 1 at 9, to the extent that Butler intended to object to Judge Bryant's characterization of the authenticated records, the objection is overruled. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the unobjected-to portions of the FCR for plain error and finds none. Furthermore, the Court, having revrewed the objected- 2 to portions of the FCR de novo, overrules the objections. Accordingly, the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the united States Magistrate Judge and dismisses all of Butler's claims against all defendants with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 u.s.c. $ 1915. The Court will enter a judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 in a separate document. So ordered on June lL, rorr. 0o S 3 WESLEY HENDRIX STATES DiSTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.