Garces v. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
5:25-cv-00252
W.D. Tex.Jun 24, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Matthew Andrew Garces filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, alleging failure to investigate his ADA complaint.
- The claims presented were essentially identical to those previously litigated by Garces in another federal case involving the same factual circumstances and defendants.
- The Magistrate Judge issued a Show Cause Order noting the complaint failed to state a valid legal claim and alerted Garces that he must submit an amended complaint to avoid dismissal.
- Garces failed to file any amended complaint or timely respond to the Show Cause Order.
- After reassignment due to judicial recusal, Garces filed untimely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) and moved for the Magistrate's recusal.
- The District Court reviewed the R&R for clear error, found none, and dismissed Garces’s action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); the recusal motion was mooted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DOJ liability for failure to investigate ADA | DOJ violated the ADA by failing to investigate his claim | DOJ not liable for investigative decisions | DOJ cannot be sued for failing to investigate; claim dismissed |
| Duplicative litigation against individual defendants | Claims against Huff & Wolf based on same facts as prior suit | Res judicata/malicious as claims already litigated | Claims are duplicative or malicious; dismissed |
| Timeliness of objections to R&R | Objections filed after deadline | Untimely objections should not be considered | Untimely objections ignored |
| Opportunity to amend complaint | No amended complaint or attempt to cure deficiencies | Plaintiff failed to cure deficiencies | No valid claim stated; no amendment submitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object to a magistrate judge's R&R limits appellate review and district court discretion)
- Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2002) (no private right to sue EEOC for handling of discrimination complaints)
- Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2015) (failure to file objections restricts appellate review except for plain error)