govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-1_25-cv-00396-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
BEAUMONT DIVISION 
 
DAVID R. PETE, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as 
GOVERNOR of the STATE OF TEXAS; 
and KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity 
as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 
STATE OF TEXAS 
 
 Defendants. 
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-00396-MJT 
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING THE CASE 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 
United States Magistrate Judges, the Court referred this proceeding to the Honorable Christine L. 
Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge , 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 November 20, 2025, the Court ordered pro se Plaintiff David R. Pete to show cause as 
to why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) for his misuse of 
artificial intelligence (AI) in this action. See [Dkt. 12]. Pursuant to that order, Judge Stetson 
conducted an in-person show-cause hearing with Plaintiff on January 6, 2026. [Dkts. 13, 16, 17]. 
Thereafter, on May 7, 2026, Judge Stetson issued a Rep ort and Recommendation finding that 
sanctions were warranted and recommended imposi ng two $ 100 fin es against Plaintiff for his 
factual misrepresentations to the Court, one for his filings before the show-cause hearing and one 
for his filings after the show-cause hearing. See [Dkt. 20]. PageID #: 
<pageID>
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 2, 2026, [Dkt. 2 0], 
which was after his fourteen-day period to object expired. 1 Despite this tardiness, Plaintiff did 
not move for leave to file late objections nor explain the lateness in his objections. Accordingly, 
the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error, 2 and finds none. Thus, it is 
hereby ORDERED that 
(1) the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 20] is ADOPTED; and
(2) Plaintiff is SANCTIONED under Rule 11(b) and shall pay to the court:
(a) $100 for his factual misrepresentations before the show-cause hearing, and
(b) $100 for the factual misrepresentations in his March 25 motion [Dkt. 19].
It is FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed under Rule 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to 
pay the filing fee as instructed on October 14, 2025, [Dkt. 9]. A final judgment will be entered. 
1 Although signed by Judge Stetson on May 7, 2026, the Report and Recommendation was not mailed to Plaintiff until 
May 11, 2026. Even with his extension for mailing, however, Plaintiff ’s objections were due on May 28, 2026. Per 
the filing on the docket, he filed them in person on June 2. See [Dkt. 20 at 1]; but see id. at 7 (falsely claiming that 
he filed his objections via the Court’s CM/ECF system). 
2 The Court also reviewed the transcript of the show-cause hearing and Plaintiff’s other filings cited in Judge Stetson’s 
Report and Recommendation. 
____________________________ 
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 15th day of June, 2026. PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight