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. 122]

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 June 14, 2024, Judge Stetson issued a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 122] with

the following conclusions and recommendations: (1) Plaintiff did not meet the clearly established

right prong to overcome Defendant McDonald’s assertion of qualified immunity, (2) Defendant 

McDonald was therefore entitled to qualified immunity, meaning (3) Defendant McDonald’s 

Motion for Summary [Dkt. 104] should be granted, and (4) Plaintiff’s construed Cross-Motion 

for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 116] should be denied. Plaintiff filed timely objections [Dkt. 126] 

on July 2, 2024, but they fail to address the issue of qualified immunity and largely retell

Plaintiff’s version of events. Additionally, Plaintiff reinvokes his argument that Judge Stetson 

should have recused herself which has been addressed numerous times by the Court [Dkts. 63, 

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 130 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2285
2

71 at 3-4, 72], including an order where Plaintiff was informed that such a request should be 

filed in a separate motion [Dkt. 94 at 2]. Defendant McDonald has not objected.

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

A. Legal Standard

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). 

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s objections are immaterial to Judge Stetson’s finding that he did not sufficiently

show Defendant McDonald violated a clearly established right for the purpose of overcoming

qualified immunity [Dkt. 122 at 15-16]. After de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge 

Stetson that Defendant McDonald is entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s claims. The 

Court adopts Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 122].

II. Conclusion and Order

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

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

Plaintiff’s objections [Dkt. 126] are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation of the 

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 130 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2286
3

United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 122] is ADOPTED. Defendant McDonald’s Motion for

Summary Judgment [Dkt. 104] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s construed Cross-Motion for 

Summary Judgment [Dkt. 116] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant McDonald are

DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 15th day of July, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00227-MJT-CLS Document 130 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2287