185/IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

DR. JOHNATHAN CASTILLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PORT ARTHUR ISD, MARK PORTERIE, 

MELISSA OLIVA, MONIQUE 

BIENVENUE, MICHAEL OLIVER, and 

MICHAEL MORATH,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-209-MJT

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [Dkt. 50]

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 [Dkts. 35, 44] to the Honorable 

Christine L. Stetson for consideration and disposition Port Arthur ISD’s, Monique Bienvenue’s, 

and Mark Porterie’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 12], Michael Morath’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 13], 

Melissa Oliva’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 21], and Michael Oliver’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 42].

On July 18, 2024, Judge Stetson issued a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 50] with the 

following conclusions and recommendations: (1) Plaintiff failed to overcome Defendants

Bienvenue’s, Oliva’s, Oliver’s, and Porterie’s assertions of qualified immunity, meaning all 

claims against those defendants should be dismissed without prejudice, (2) Plaintiff failed to state 

a claim under §1985 against Defendant Port Arthur ISD and the Court should dismiss such a claim 

with prejudice, (3) with no remaining federal claims, the Court should dismiss without prejudice 

all remaining state law claims, and (4) Plaintiff should not be granted leave to amend because 

doing so would be futile and Plaintiff hasfailed to address these same issues in a prior amendment.

Case 1:23-cv-00209-MJT Document 56 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 906
2

I. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation are Overruled

A. Legal Standard

On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed timely objections [Dkt. 55] to the Report and 

Recommendation. 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

Although Plaintiffs filed written objections in a timely manner, the objections are not

proper. Plaintiff requested [Dkt. 52] and the Court granted [Dkt. 54] leave for three extra pages 

for his objections. The objections, however, contain pages of a factual recitation of Plaintiff’s 

case and irrelevant arguments. For example, Plaintiff objects to the Court’s rejection of Plaintiff’s 

novel interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) as a backdoor around the Court’s

scheduling order. See generally [Dkt. 55 at 6]. That argument was not raised in the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation and, therefore, objecting to the Report and 

Recommendation on that ground is improper. Furthermore, under the heading of “Specific 

Case 1:23-cv-00209-MJT Document 56 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 907
3

Objections,” Plaintiff first lists a series of quotes from the Report and Recommendation but does 

not explain what is wrong with each quote, or how the legal analysis was impacted by each

statement.1 

At the end of the filing, Plaintiff identifies three overarching objections: (1) Judge Stetson 

allegedly erred by finding Plaintiff failed to state a conspiracy claim, (2) she also allegedly erred 

by recommending the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 

claims, and (3) Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend [Id. at 10]. The Court finds there to be 

two specific objections embedded within Plaintiff’s filing, but these objections are ultimately 

without merit.

First, Plaintiff contends that he did not plead a 42 U.S.C. §1985 claim, but rather various 

42 U.S.C. §1983 claims and an independent “civil conspiracy claim” based on the alleged 

violation of his constitutional rights [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff’s operative complaint states under the 

heading of “Constitutional Violations” that “Defendants have joined together in a civil conspiracy 

to violate the rights privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiff by the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States” [Dkt. 10 at 17]. That is the sum of 

Plaintiff’s explanation of his constitutional claims. Nowhere does the complaint mention 42 

U.S.C. §1983 or §1985. However, Judge Stetson correctly found that Plaintiff’s allegation of a 

conspiracy falls under 42 U.S.C. §1985. In his objections, Plaintiff does not explain how the law 

provides a civil conspiracy claim based on violations of constitutional rights independent of 42 

U.S.C. §1985. This objection is overruled.

1 As one example, Plaintiff “objects” to a portion of the Report and Recommendation that states “Defendants Oliva 

and Oliver appeared later and filed their Motions to Dismiss on December 19, 2023, and June 26, 2024” [Dkt. 55 at 

10]. Not only does Plaintiff fail to explain what is wrong with that statement, but the docket confirms that statement 

to be true [Dkts. 21, 24].

Case 1:23-cv-00209-MJT Document 56 Filed 08/06/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 908
4

Next, Plaintiff asserts the Report and Recommendation is wrong as a matter of law in 

finding Plaintiff did not overcome the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity [Dkt. 

50 at 10]. As Judge Stetson correctly noted, a party attempting to overcome qualified immunity 

must point to “a robust consensus of persuasive authority... [that] defines the contours of the right 

in question with a high degree of particularity.” Rogers v. Hall, 46 F.4th 308, 312-13 (5th Cir. 

2022); see, e.g., Goebel v. Perez, No. 5-22-CV-01354-FB-RBF, 2023 WL 8707129, at *3 (W.D. 

Tex. Nov. 13, 2023), R&R adopted, No. CV SA-22-CA-01354-FB, 2023 WL 8705423 (W.D. 

Tex. Dec. 15, 2023). Plaintiff failed to point to authority clearly establishing any right invoked 

by Plaintiff. The individual Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity because 

Plaintiff did not meet his burden to overcome qualified immunity. 

As a final note, the Court draws attention to the fact that pending before it are four motions 

to dismiss. At this stage, “the Court is limited to reviewing the four corners of the Complaint.” 

Hudson v. Pot-O-Gold Rentals, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00314, 2018 WL 5732081, at *4 (S.D. Tex. 

July 24, 2018) (citing Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 401 (5th Cir. 2011)), R&R adopted, No. 

3:17-CV-00314, 2018 WL 3862092 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018). Yet here Plaintiff attached over 

one-hundred pages of evidence to his responses to two of the pending motions [Dkts. 18-1, 31-1, 

31-2]. The Report and Recommendation and this order adopting consider whether Plaintiff has

properly pleaded his claims. Plaintiff has already amended once as a matter of course in face of 

nearly identical motions to dismiss [Dkts. 5, 6, 10], but Plaintiff’s complaint is still deficient. 

Moreover, Plaintiff informed the Court nine months ago that he would seek leave to amend again 

[Dkt. 17 at 5], but never did so. To allow Plaintiff to amend once again at this late stage would 

prejudice the Defendants. 

Case 1:23-cv-00209-MJT Document 56 Filed 08/06/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 909
5

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, 

Plaintiff’s objections [Dkt. 55] are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 50] is ADOPTED. The four pending motions to dismiss 

[Dkts. 12, 13, 21, 42] are GRANTED in full as follows.

Plaintiff fails to overcome Defendants Bienvenue’s, Oliva’s, Oliver’s, and Porterie’s 

assertions of qualified immunity. Claims against those defendants are DISMISSED without 

prejudice. Plaintiff fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1985 against Defendant Port Arthur 

ISD and this claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. As no other federal or diversity claims are 

pending, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims 

which are, hereby, DISMISSED without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. The Court will enter 

a separate final judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 6th day of August, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00209-MJT Document 56 Filed 08/06/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 910