Havens v. Chapa
2:24-cv-00105
| S.D. Tex. | Nov 17, 2025
                                                                    Southern District of Texas 
                                                                      ENTERED 
                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT              Neves 1% 2088 
                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS                athan □□□□□□□□ Clerk 
                          CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION 
CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS,           § 
      Plaintiff,                         : 
                                                CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00105 
AMANDO CHAPA, ef ail.,                    : 
       Defendants.                       : 
          ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION 
     Before  the   Court  is  Magistrate  Judge  Mitchel  Neurock’s  Memorandum  and 
Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 111). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ 
Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity, (D.E. 109), as to all claims except 
“Plaintiff's due process claim alleging wrongful placement in indefinite solitary confinement upon 
Plaintiffs return from Kleberg County, without prejudice to Deputy Chief Chapa’s later seeking 
of qualified immunity upon submission of competent summary judgment evidence,” (D.E. 111, p. 
49-50). Plaintiff filed a written objection to the M&R. (D.E. 118). 
                               I. Legal Standard 
     When a  party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the 
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). “A district court need not consider ‘[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.’” Gates 
y. Allstate Texas Lloyd’s,
267 F. Supp. 3d 861, 864
 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (Martinez, J.) (alteration in 
1/3 

original) (quoting Battle v.  U.S. Parole Comm’n,
834 F.2d 419, 421
  (Sth Cir.  1987)). If a party 
generally objects to the M&R’s reliance on evidence, that is not sufficiently particularized for the 
district court to consider. See, e.g., Garrett v. Sulser, No. 6:17cv310,
2020 WL 562804
, at *2 (E.D. 
Tex. Feb.  5, 2020) (Clark, J.) (finding party’s objection to the magistrate judge’s reliance on 
“falsified  and  insufficient  documentary  evidence  submitted  by  the  Defendants”  was  not 
sufficiently specific). Further, when a party raises a new argument in his objections that was not 
first presented to the magistrate judge,  it  is  not properly  before the  Court.  United States  v. 
Armstrong,
951 F.2d 626, 630
 (Sth Cir. 1992). 
                                  II. Analysis 
      Plaintiff's sole objection to the M&R is as follows: “Plaintiff completely objects to the 
entire M&R based on fabricated evidence which written reports that are false and make false entry 
into any record changes the face of this/any case triggering federal law violations of the  14th 
Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 1819, 242, and civil conspiracy.” (D.E. 118, p. 1). Plaintiff's objection 
to the M&R does not specifically identify the findings and recommendations he wishes to have 
the Court consider. See
id.
  Instead, Plaintiff generally objects to the M&R’s reliance on certain 
evidence.  /d.  Standing  alone,  this  generic  and  vague  objection to  the  M&R is not  a proper 
objection. Sulser,
2020 WL 562804
, at *2. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objection. 
      Plaintiff further contends the Court must order Defendants to send Plaintiff their summary 
judgment evidence. (D.E. 118, p. 1). This issue is raised for the first time in response to the M&R. 
    As such, it is not properly before the Court. Armstrong,
951 F.2d at 630
. Therefore, to the 

' Plaintiff argues his request for Defendants’ evidence “has already been brought to this Court’s attention 
in another case[,] making this the third time thus far.” (D.E. 118, p. 1). Even if Plaintiff had made a similar 
request in a different case, he has not raised this request before  Judge Neurock in this case until now. Indeed, 
Plaintiff had over two months from when Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 109) 
  April 30, 2025), to when Judge Neurock issued the M&R, (D.E.  111) (entered July 10, 2025), to 

extent Plaintiff’s argument is an objection to the M&R, the Court OVERRULES it. 
      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 Plaintiffs 
objection is directed,
28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(C), the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection, 
(D.E. 118), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 111). Accordingly, the 
Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Qualified Immunity as to 
all claims except Plaintiff's due process claim alleging wrongful placement in indefinite solitary 
confinement upon Plaintiff's return from Kleberg County, without prejudice to Deputy Chief 
Chapa’s later seeking of qualified immunity upon submission of competent summary judgment 
evidence. (D.E. 109). 
      SO ORDERED. 
                                          / 

                                          DA     S. MORALES 
                                          UNIT     TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas 
      November /94$2025 

request Daendans summary   dane evidence in this matter.