1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

AUTHOR J. MANNING JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF 

TEXAS, in the interest of A.S.M., a 

minor, 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:24-cv-3-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Author J. Manning Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this action on 

December 27, 2023. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John 

D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On January 24, 2024, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 7. Plaintiff objected. Docket No. 10. 

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 

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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other 

Case 6:24-cv-00003-JDK-JDL Document 11 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 32
2 

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 

ten to fourteen days). 

In his objections, Plaintiff states that the Magistrate Judge erred in dismissing 

his case because it was related to fraud and for “the State Violating [its] Corporate 

Responsibility.” Docket No. 10. But as the Magistrate Judge explained, the court 

does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for “fraud” that is factually rooted in 

the state court’s judgment regarding the paternity of child April S.M. See Docket 

No. 7 at 2–4 (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)). 

The Magistrate Judge further found that while Plaintiff had used the term 

“false arrest” in his original complaint, the complaint wholly lacked any factual basis 

for such a claim that would possibly provide jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. 

at 3. Plaintiff’s objections do not elaborate on a claim for false arrest and simply state 

that “Plaintiff was Falsely Arrested.” Docket No. 10. Thus, even to the extent that 

the court were to accept these threadbare allegations as a basis for subject matter 

jurisdiction in this case, Plaintiff’s claim is still subject to dismissal because it fails 

to state a claim for false arrest. 

An arrest is unlawful if the officer did not have probable cause. See Parm v. 

Shumate, 513 F.3d 135, 142 (5th Cir. 2007) (“in order to prevail in a § 1983 claim for 

false arrest, a plaintiff must show that he was arrested without probable cause in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment.”); Brown v. Lyford, 243 F.3d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 

2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“The constitutional tort of false arrest . . . 

Case 6:24-cv-00003-JDK-JDL Document 11 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 33
3 

require[s] a showing of no probable cause.”). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged an arrest 

without probable cause—he merely states that he was falsely arrested, without 

more. This conclusory allegation fails to state any facts regarding an alleged 

Fourth Amendment violation. 

Plaintiff’s objections instead go on to state that he was in jail for two months, 

attacked by other prisoners, treated unfairly, refused to be fed once by a guard, and 

harassed by the child support agency. Id. While these allegations, if more thoroughly 

pleaded, may provide a basis for a federal claim, facts regarding Plaintiff’s time in 

jail were not included in his original complaint. Thus, any claims related to Plaintiff’s 

confinement will not be considered because they were raised for the first time in his 

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See Finley v. 

Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 219 n.3 (5th Cir. 2001). To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to 

pursue these new claims, he may file a new lawsuit, subject to the limits of joinder 

under the applicable rules of civil procedure. 

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. 7) as the 

opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

Case 6:24-cv-00003-JDK-JDL Document 11 Filed 02/07/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 34
4 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7th February, 2024.

Case 6:24-cv-00003-JDK-JDL Document 11 Filed 02/07/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 35