1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, #01271648, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNKNOWN GARZA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-327-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Francisco Sanchez, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate 

proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case 

was transferred to this Court for proper venue and referred to United States 

Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

On August 10, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice as frivolous and fore 

failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Docket No. 18. Plaintiff 

has filed three letters since receipt of the Report. Docket Nos. 22–24. Despite the 

Court having informed Plaintiff that it does not routinely provide translation service 

(see Docket No. 11 at 2), the letters are in Spanish. Nevertheless, the Court construes 

the English attachments to those letters as Plaintiff’s objections to the Report. 

Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court 

reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28 

Case 6:23-cv-00327-JDK-KNM Document 28 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 66
2 

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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

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, at*1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002) 

(“[O]bjections 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.”). 

Judge Mitchell recommended dismissal because Plaintiff’s amended complaint 

alleges only that Defendant Halen sends him to a food line where “problems” happen 

with his food and did not allege any facts at all against Defendants Garcia or Garza. 

Case 6:23-cv-00327-JDK-KNM Document 28 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 67
3 

Judge Mitchell concluded that Plaintiff has not alleged that any Defendant was 

deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. Docket No. 

18 at 4–5. The documents submitted by Plaintiff establish that he has undergone 

medical evaluations indicating kidney problems, that he was seen by healthcare 

providers repeatedly in June 2023, and that he has alleged in prison grievances that 

inmates are contaminating his food with saliva, of which officials denied any 

knowledge. Docket Nos. 22-1, 23-1, 24-1. Plaintiff’s unsupported speculation that 

any health problems he suffers are connected to his food are not sufficient to establish 

that the food poses a substantial risk of serious harm, and nothing in these documents 

establish that Defendants are subjectively aware of any risk of harm and have failed 

to act appropriately. Accordingly, the documents submitted by Plaintiff do not 

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

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the 

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

the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 18) as 

the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Signed this

Oct 4, 2023

Case 6:23-cv-00327-JDK-KNM Document 28 Filed 10/04/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 68