IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

EDWARD LEE GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK H. MCDONALD and 

ANTHONY GRANTHAM,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-227-MJT-CLS

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [Dkt. 74]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the District Court referred this proceeding to the Honorable 

Christine L. Stetson to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend 

disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72. 

On January 12, 2024, Judge Stetson issued a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 74] 

advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt. 57] because (1) all 

properly served parties had filed responsive pleadings, and (2) even if a defendant was in default, 

Plaintiff has not followed the proper procedure. On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document 

[Dkt. 92] which purports to object to Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt. 74], Judge Stetson’s order [Dkt. 72] denying Plaintiff’s 

construed motion for recusal, and this Court’s order adopting Judge Stetson’s Report and 

Recommendation on City Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 73]. This document also appears 

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 94 Filed 02/14/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1163
2

to mention Judge Stetson’s show cause order [Dkt. 79] and attempts to relitigate this Court’s 

severance and dismissal of Ms. Hile and Ms. Seeney from the current action.

This is an improper filing for several reasons. First and foremost, Plaintiff’s document 

[Dkt. 92] is directed to the Court, but addresses numerous issues directed at both the Court and 

Judge Stetson in violation of the Local Rules. For example, the record does not reflect that 

Plaintiff has responded to Judge Stetson’s show cause order [Dkt. 79] outside of a passing 

reference in this instant filing. Under the Local Rules, each pleading, motion, or response “must 

be filed as a separate document.” E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-7(a). Second, these different issues

require the application of different legal standards. For example, timely objections to a 

magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation trigger a de novo review, while late objections 

to a Report and Recommendation or a non-dispositive order merit a plain error review. Third, 

Plaintiff exceeds the page limits on filings set forth in the local rules which require objections to 

a Report and Recommendation be limited to eight pages, E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72(C), and nondispositive motions, such as Plaintiff’s construed motion to reconsider severing Hile and Seeney, 

are limited to fifteen pages. E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-7(a)(2). Plaintiff is advised to review the 

Local Rules on this Court’s Website, www.txed.uscourts.gov. 

Although filed after the deadline for objections to Judge Stetson’s Report and 

Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgement, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s 

filing as objections to Dkt. 74. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff, to the extent he wishes to 

“object” to Dkt. 72 and Dkt. 73, to do so in separate and appropriate filings within seven (7) days 

of receipt of this order. The Court, furthermore, ORDERS Plaintiff respond to Judge Stetson’s 

show cause order [Dkt. 79] within seven (7) days of receipt of this order in a separate filed 

document.

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 94 Filed 02/14/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1164
3

I. Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation are Overruled

A. Legal Standard

On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 

92]. A party who timely files specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to 

which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). To 

be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection 

is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s report 

and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. 

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles 

v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). No Defendant 

has objected to the Report and Recommendation.

B. Discussion

Plaintiff objects to Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 74 at 3] claiming 

all parties has been served, thus all parties who have not answered are in default. Nowhere in the 

motion for default judgment does Plaintiff make clear which parties Plaintiff believes to be in 

default. Plaintiff’s motion is not, therefore, a proper motion for default judgment. Additionally, 

after de novo review, the Court cannot identify any properly served party to be in default. The 

Court adopts Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 74].

II. Conclusion and Order

The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiffs’ objections in relation to the 

pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, 

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 94 Filed 02/14/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1165
4

Plaintiffs’ objections [Dkt. 92] are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 74] is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

[Dkt. 57] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff, to the extent he wishes to object to Dkt. 72 and 

Dkt. 73, to do so in separate and appropriate filings within seven (7) days of receipt of this order, 

and Plaintiff respond to Judge Stetson’s show cause order [Dkt. 79] within seven (7) days of 

receipt of this order. The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to attach Dkt. 79 to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 14th day of February, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 94 Filed 02/14/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1166