1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSEPH EUGENE NAGY,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN MCGRATH et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 3:22-CV-1627-X-BN

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

On August 5, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the 

Court dismiss this case. [Doc. No. 7]. On August 13, 2022, Joseph Nagy received 

that recommendation.1 On August 23, 2022, the Court accepted the Magistrate 

Judge’s recommendation, dismissed the case, and entered final judgment. [Doc. 

Nos. 8, 9]. But here’s the twist. On the same day—August 23, 2022—Nagy moved 

to dismiss his own complaint. [Doc. No. 10]. Nagy then moved to vacate the Court’s 

judgment. [Doc. No. 11]. The Magistrate Judge then made findings, conclusions, 

and a recommendation on that motion to vacate. [Doc. No. 12]. Specifically, the 

Magistrate Judge concluded that, because Nagy had received the Magistrate Judge’s 

1

 Doc. No. 11 at 1.

Case 3:22-cv-01627-X-BN Document 14 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 68
2

initial recommendation on August 13, 2022, this case had “reached the point of no 

return” where it’s too late for a plaintiff to dismiss his own case.2

Nagy objects to that recommendation on five grounds. First, Nagy notifies 

the Court of his gratitude to “Yeshua, our Lord and Savior” for, inter alia, “the first 

day of Autumn.”3 Second, citing the Gospel of John, Nagy confesses that he “has 

sinned.”4 Third, Nagy insinuates that the Court has jurisdiction because the 

requisite “amount in controversy” is met.5 Fourth, he asserts that the Court’s 

rulings “seem discriminatory to a postal filer.”6 Fifth, Nagy recites a laundry list of 

conclusory complaints, saying, for instance, that he objects to “the wrongful order,” 

“forced time restraints,” “wrongful filing times,” and “the magistrate’s prisoner 

references.”7

But Nagy’s objections fail to negate two dispositive facts. First, Nagy filed his 

motion to dismiss only after receiving the Magistrate Judge’s adverse 

recommendation. And, although it’s true that a plaintiff generally has an “absolute 

right to dismissal” of his own complaint before a defendant responds,8 the Fifth 

Circuit has made clear that a district court properly “den[ies] [a] motion for voluntary 

2 Aero-Colours, Inc. v. Propst, 833 F.2d 51, 52 (5th Cir. 1987).

3

 Doc. No. 13 at 2.

4 Id.

5 Id. at 3.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 3–4.

8 Welsh v. Correct Care, L.L.C., 915 F.3d 341, 344 (5th Cir. 2019).

Case 3:22-cv-01627-X-BN Document 14 Filed 02/16/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 69
3

dismissal without prejudice” when a “magistrate ha[s] [already] considered the case 

and issued a comprehensive recommendation that was adverse to [the plaintiff’s] 

position.”9 So Nagy’s motion to dismiss was improper. Second, in the six months 

since the Magistrate Judge’s original dismissal recommendation, Nagy hasn’t filed a 

single substantive objection to that recommendation. So Nagy’s complaints about 

filing deadlines lack merit.

Accordingly, the Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and 

reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for 

plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court therefore DENIES Nagy’s 

Motion to Vacate Judgment [Doc. No. 11], construed as brought under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 59(e), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to, solely for statistical 

purposes, REOPEN and then CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2023.

____________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 Davis v. Huskipower Outdoor Equip. Corp., 936 F.2d 193, 199 (5th Cir. 1991).

Case 3:22-cv-01627-X-BN Document 14 Filed 02/16/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 70