Thompson v. Bumpas
4:22-cv-00640-P
| N.D. Tex. | Dec 12, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Randal Lee Thompson filed an Amended Complaint in federal court; Magistrate Judge Cureton issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) recommending dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- Thompson filed a generalized Objection to the FCR asserting only that he objects to dismissal and citing assorted federal statutes without explaining their application.
- The district court reviewed de novo the portions of the FCR that were properly objected to and evaluated whether Thompson’s objections met Rule 72(b)’s specificity requirement.
- The court concluded Thompson’s objection was not specific enough to place the court on notice of any particular alleged error in the FCR, despite affording pro se litigants leniency.
- The court overruled Thompson’s objection, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, and dismissed the case with prejudice as to refiling; a Final Judgment was entered the same day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Complaint states a claim | Thompson asserts claims (citing various statutes) but did not explain their application | FCR found the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim | Dismissal for failure to state a claim adopted |
| Whether the objection to the FCR was timely and specific under Rule 72(b) | Thompson filed an objection asserting general disagreement with dismissal | Court/Magistrate: objection lacked specificity to trigger de novo review | Objection insufficient; no specific errors identified; de novo review limited |
| Whether pro se status alters the specificity requirement | Thompson relies on leniency due to pro se status | Court: pro se leniency applied but does not excuse required specificity | Pro se leniency considered but objection still inadequate |
| Whether dismissal should bar refiling | Thompson implicitly seeks continuation of suit | FCR recommended dismissal with prejudice as to refiling | Court adopted dismissal with prejudice as to refiling |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. K&B Equip. Co., 724 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1984) (objection must be specific to put district court on notice of urged error)
- United States v. Mathis, 458 F. Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Tex. 2020) (an objection must identify the specific finding, basis, and location in the R&R)
- Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2016) (district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections)
- Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2016) (courts must afford pro se litigants leniency)
- Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (a generalized objection to an R&R does not satisfy Rule 72(b))