The opinion
□ Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 21, 2025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
athan Ochsner, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ROBERTO SALINAS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO, 2:23-CV-00160
§
KIMBERLY PEREZ, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court are Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s October 4, 2024 Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”), (D.E. 61), and November 12, 2024 M&R, (D.E. 74). The October 4,
2024 M&R recommends that the Court!:
(1) Dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment false imprisonment claims against Sheriff
Romeo Ramirez and Lt. Kimberly Perez; and
(2) Retain Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims against
Sheriff Romeo Ramirez and Lt. Kimberly Perez,
(D.E. 61, p. 1, 8). Plaintiff filed written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 65). Defendants also filed
written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 66).
The November 11, 2024 M&R recommends that the Court:
(1) Grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (D.E. 56); and
(2) Dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against
Sheriff Romeo Ramirez and Lt. Kimberly Perez,
(D.E. 74, p. 20). Plaintiff filed written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 79).
When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the
' The October 4, 2024 M&R also recommended denial of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
(D.E. 61, p. 1, 8), but the Court later vacated the M&R to the extent it recommended denying as moot
Defendants’ summary judgment motion, (D.E. 73, p. 6).
1/5
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). 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 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per
curiam).
I. October 4, 2024 M&R
Plaintiff appears to object to the M&R’s recommendation that his false imprisonment claim
against Sherriff Ramirez be dismissed and instead recharacterized as a Fourteenth Amendment
substantive due process claim. (D.E. 65, p. 1). Plaintiff filed a first set of supplemental objections,
(D.E. 67), which appear to be a response to Defendants’ objections, and then supplement to the
objections, (D.E. 68).
Plaintiff restates his original claim that Defendants Perez and Ramirez had no basis for
denying bail. (D.E. 67, p. 3). Plaintiff also appears to raise a claim for false arrest: “Plaintiff objects
to the sheriff's false arrest and imprisonment.” (D.E. 65, p. 1). Further, Plaintiff appears to present
a claim for obstruction of justice. /d. at 2.
Plaintiff's objections are conclusory—and the Court does not consider conclusory
objections that do not specifically assert why the M&R is wrong. See Perez v. Stephens, No. 2:15-
CV-409, 2016 WL 722466, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2016) (Ramos, J.), aff'd sub nom., 690 F.
App’x 200 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam); Martinez v. Torok, No. 2:21-CV-113, 2022 LEXIS
133239, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2022) (Tipton, J.) (“[A] party must object to the magistrate’s
finding or recommendation with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of
the true ground for the objection.” (quoting United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir.
2008) and cleaned up)). Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants had no authority to deny him bail
2/5
do not explain why the M&R’s recommendation that his false imprisonment claims be reconstrued
is wrong.
Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff presents new claims, that may be construed as a motion
to amend his complaint. (D.E. 73, p. 5-6). But Judge Hampton denied Plaintiff's leave to amend
to include obstruction and false arrest claims, see id, pursuant to the Court’s order requiring
1) court approval to file an amendment or supplement and 2) that Plaintiff attach a completed
amended complaint to any motion to amend, (D.E. 49, p. 10). Because Plaintiff's previous motion
to amend has already been denied and because his objections do not state why the M&R is wrong,
the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections. (D.E. 65; D.E. 67; D.E. 68).
Defendants object to the M&R’s recommendation that the Court deny their motion for
summary judgment. (D.E. 66, p. 8). But Judge Hampton vacated that part of the M&R, to the
extent the M&R recommended denying summary judgment. (D.E. 73, p. 6). Because that
recommendation has already been vacated, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objections as
moot. (D.E. 66).
II. November 12, 2024 M&R
Plaintiff lodges myriad objections to the November 12, 2024 M&R’s recommendation that
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (D.E. 79). Plaintiff presents his
understanding of when bail may be denied, id. at 2-4, questions why Defendants denied him bail
id., and speculates as to Defendant Ramirez’s motivations in denying him bail, id. at 5—6, Plaintiff
further alleges that Defendant identified additional money orders which do not belong to him, id.
at 7; (D.E. 81, p. 1-2), and that the Court should find that such false evidence undermines the
credibility of all of Defendants’ arguments, (D.E. 79, p. 8-9).
3/5
Once again, Plaintiffs objections as to denial of bail, (D.E. 79, p. 2-4), are largely
conclusory and do not address the M&R’s findings that Defendants did not delay Plaintiff's release
from jail after he satisfied all conditions of his release. (D.E. 74, p. 15-17). The Court does not
consider conclusory objections that do not specifically assert why the M&R is wrong. See Perez,
2016 WL 722466, at *1; Martinez, 2022 LEXIS 133239, at *2.
Pursuant to the Court’s Order issued on March 5, 2024, (D.E. 49, p. 10), the Court need
not address Plaintiff's new claims introduced in his objections. (D.E. 79, p. 5—7). To the extent
Plaintiff attempts to raise new claims relating to Equal Protection Clause violations or obstruction
of justice, those claims 1) must have been filed with court approval, and 2) must have been
presented in an amended complaint attached to a motion to amend. (D.E. 49, p. 10).
Lastly, Plaintiff's objections as to the November money order do not constitute a genuine
issue of material fact. FED. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Plaintiff says that the receipts with serial numbers
019435 and 019436 belong to “Gerardo Reyes and Angel Munoz.” (D.E. 79, p. 7). And Defendants
state the same. (D.E. 56, p. 6). Because that fact does not bear on the M&R’s conclusion that
Plaintiff has failed to point to clearly established law to overcome Defendants’ assertion of
qualified immunity, (D.E. 74, p. 19), the Court OVERRULES this objection, (D.E. 79, p. 7).
The date of the November money order is also not in controversy. While Plaintiff has
submitted a $10.00 money order (which appears to be) dated November 16, 2021, (D.E. 55-3,
p. 3), and Defendants have submitted a $15.00 money order dated November 15, 2021, (D.E. 56-
1, p. 20), Plaintiff has also confirmed the validity of the $15.00 money order: “[t]he receipt for
$15.00 money order presented by Plaintiff's wife bears the serial number 019437 is correct,”
(D.E. 79, p. 7). Even considering Plaintiff's $10.00 November 16, 2021 money order, this does
not disturb the M&R’s determination that Plaintiff did not satisfy all of the conditions of his release
4/5
until November 16—the day of his release. (D.E. 74, p. 16). As such, Plaintiff has failed to rebut
Defendants’ qualified immunity defense “by establishing that [their] allegedly wrongful conduct
violated clearly established law and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the
reasonableness of [their] conduct.” Gates v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d
404, 409 (Sth Cir. 2008). Finally, Plaintiff acknowledges that he has “not submitted any clearly
established law” regarding his claims. (D.E. 79, p. 1). Accordingly, the Court must OVERRULE
Plaintiff's objections. (D.E. 79).
Having 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 the parties’
objections are directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections,
(D.E. 65; D.E. 67; D.E. 68), and Defendants’ objections, (D.E. 66), and ADOPTS the findings
and conclusions of the October 4, 2024 M&R, (D.E. 61). Furthermore, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 79; D.E. 81), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the
November 12, 2024 M&R, (D.E. 74). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, (D.E. 56), and DISMISSES Plaintiff's case. The Court will enter a final
judgment separately.
SO ORDERED. . | | | /
DA MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Signed: Corpus Ciirtsti, Texas
March Z $7 2025
5/5