IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

DUSTAN RYAN KILLINGSWORTH, §

#02185808, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 6:23-cv-446-JDK-JDL

§

RAINS COUNTY COURT, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil

rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States 

Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations for the disposition of the case. 

On October 17, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that 

the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b), due to the bar of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Docket 

No. 9. The Plaintiff has filed a written objection to the Report. Docket No. 16. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 

record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

1

Case 6:23-cv-00446-JDK-JDL Document 17 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 57
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

A party objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report must specifically identify 

those findings to which he objects. Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need 

not be considered by the District Judge. See Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 

& n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Furthermore, objections that simply rehash or mirror 

the underlying claims addressed in the Report are not sufficient to entitle the party 

to de novo review. See U.S. v. Morales, 947 F.Supp.2d 166, 171 (D.P.R. 2013) (“Even 

though timely objections to a report and recommendation entitle the objecting party 

to de novo review of the findings, ‘the district court should be spared the chore of 

traversing ground already plowed by the Magistrate.’”) (internal citations omitted); 

see also Vega v. Artuz, 2002 WL 31174466 *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 2002) 

(unpublished) (“However, objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued 

in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments 

set forth in the original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the 

magistrate judge’s recommendations.”). 

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal because Plaintiff’s complaint 

challenges a standing criminal conviction and is therefore barred from federal review 

in a civil rights action pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff’s 

submission lodges a vague and insubstantial objection to dismissal, but it does not 

identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusions. 

2

Case 6:23-cv-00446-JDK-JDL Document 17 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 58
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the record and the 

Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(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.”). Upon 

such de novo review, the Court has determined that the Report of the United States 

Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, 

it is

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 9) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff’s 

objections are OVERRULED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Any 

pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

3

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 29th November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00446-JDK-JDL Document 17 Filed 11/29/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 59