Moreno v. Kwarting

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 23, 2021

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JUAN A MORENO, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00146

§

ISAAC KWARTING1, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court are Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum

and Recommendation (M&R) (D.E. 65) and Plaintiff Juan Moreno’s Objection to M&R

(D.E. 66), Memorandum of Law in Support of American with Disabilities Act (ADA) (D.E.

71), and a supplement2 (D.E. 72), all of which are construed as objections to the M&R.

The M&R recommends that the Court grant all aspects of Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

D.E. 65, pp. 1, 31–32 (citing D.E. 48, 49). The M&R further recommends that the Court:

(1) dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lisa Kendra (D.E. 22, 23);

(2) decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law negligence and

medical malpractice claims (D.E. 22, 23); (3) dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

Judgment (D.E. 55); and deny Plaintiff’s motions effectively seeking preliminary

1 Named Defendant Kwarting’s correct legal surname is spelled “Kwarteng,” as noted by Defendants in D.E. 49, p.

1 n.1. The Court, therefore, uses the correct spelling throughout the remainder of the Order, but keeps the case name

so as not to risk the case’s misidentification.

2 To the extent that the supplement is intended as a supplement to his complaint, it is filed without leave of court

and is not considered for that purpose.

1 / 6

injunctive relief (D.E. 57, 58, 62, 64). For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES

Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s M&R in all respects.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Magistrate Judge Recommendations. The district court conducts a de novo

review of any part of a magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688, 694

(5th Cir. 2000). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected

to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district

court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (discussing pro

se petitioner’s objections to M&R), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).3 As to any portion for which no objection

is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of

law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

Pro Se Documents. A “handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed,”

and “a pro se complaint, ‘however inartfully pleaded,’ must be held to ‘less stringent

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)). However, “The right of

3 See also Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (discussing pro se petitioner’s objections to

M&R) (“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution,

or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.”);

Jones v. Hamidullah, No. 2:05-2736, 2005 WL 3298966, at *3 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2005) (noting a pro se petitioner’s

M&R objections were “on the whole . . . without merit in that they merely rehash [the] general arguments and do not

direct the court’s attention to any specific portion of the [M&R]”); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (“The

filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and

legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”).

2 / 6

self-representation does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of

procedural and substantive law.” Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991)

(quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam)).

DISCUSSION

The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s filings, including his objections (D.E. 66),

memorandum of law (D.E. 71), and supplement (D.E. 72), all of which are construed as

objections to the M&R. Despite careful review of Plaintiff’s briefing, the Court finds it

largely incoherent and unsupported by the record. In sum, Plaintiff:

1. Recounts portions of the M&R;

2. Recounts portions of his pleadings;

3. Recounts portions of previously-filed motions and responses;

4. Appears to ask for an extension of time for appeal when the time for

appeal will not begin to run until judgment is entered;

5. Discusses cases with no apparent application and without demonstrating

how they relate to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis; and

6. Complains that the Magistrate Judge is biased.

Plaintiff does not state a factual or legal basis for how the M&R is incorrect. Nor does he

cite to authority that is contrary to the M&R’s analysis. These objections are insufficient

to warrant a de novo review by this Court.

At no time does Plaintiff demonstrate any error in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning

or conclusions that: (a) there is no basis for injunctive relief against the McConnell Unit

3 / 6

because Plaintiff is no longer housed there (D.E. 65, pp. 5–6); (b) all claims against

Defendants Moore, Thompson, Lawson, Dominguez, Daniel, Samaniego, and Bryant and

some claims against Defendants Kwarteng, Echavarry, Steger, and Miller are not related

to the slip and fall that supplies the main basis for Plaintiff’s claims and are thus misjoined

(Id. at 6–8, 13–18); (c) Defendant fails to state a constitutional or statutory (ADA) claim

for relief against Defendants Kwarteng, Echavarry, Steger, Miller, and Kendra regarding

the slip and fall incident (Id. at 10–12, 18–21, 23–27); (d) Plaintiff fails to state a claim

against Defendant Kendra (Id. at 26–27); (e) a federal court may decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court has dismissed all claims

over which it has original jurisdiction (Id. at 27–28); (f) Defendants are entitled to qualified

and Eleventh Amendment immunity as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims (Id. at 21–23); (g)

Plaintiff is not entitled to default judgment in this case (Id. at 28); and (h) the Court should

not issue injunctive relief against Estelle Unit operators for the factual, legal, and public

policy reasons cited in the M&R (Id. at 28–31). The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s

objections, if any, to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and result regarding the above-

mentioned recommendations.

The only specific objection Plaintiff asserts is that the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation is biased. The Court reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned and

comprehensive M&R, which indicates: (1) the Magistrate Judge’s thorough review of the

facts and arguments presented by Plaintiff in his filings, and (2) no evidence that the

4 / 6

Magistrate Judge was biased in reaching the recommended result. Therefore, the Court

OVERRULES this objection.

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set

forth in the M&R, 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 M&R to which

objections were specifically directed, the Court OVERRULES Moreno’s objections and

ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions.

The Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Lawson,

Dominguez, Moore, Thompson, Samaniego, Miller, Kwarteng, Echavarry, Steger, Daniel,

and Bryant (D.E. 48, 49) in their entirety and as follows:

(1) (a) Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claims against Defendants

Kwarteng, Echavarry, and Steger, arising from his June 20, 2019 slip and

fall, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and/or for

failure to state a claim for relief; and (b) the remaining claims against

Defendants Kwarteng, Echavarry, and Steger are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the basis of improper joinder under Rules

18(a) and 20.

(2) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Moore, Thompson, Lawson,

Dominguez, Daniel, Samaniego, and Bryant are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the basis of improper joinder under Rules

18(a) and 20.

(3) (a) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Miller arising from his June 20,

2019 slip and fall are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to

state a claim for relief; and (b) the remaining claims against Defendant

Miller are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the basis of

improper joinder under Rules 18(a) and 20.

(4) (a) Plaintiff’s ADA claim related to medical care arising from the June

20, 2019 slip and fall is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure

5 / 6

to state a claim for relief; and (b) the remaining portion of Plaintiff's ADA

clam is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the basis of

improper joinder under Rules 18(a) and 20.

(5) Plaintiffs requests for injunctive relief are DISMISSED as moot.

It is also ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lisa Kendra are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state

law claims of negligence and medical malpractice and they are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (D.E. 55) is DENIED.

Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief (D.E. 57, 58, 62, 64) are

DENIED.

This action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

ORDERED on November 23, 2021.

N he GONZAIGS RAMOS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6/6