govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-6_25-cv-00301-0

- 1 - 
No. 6:25-cv-00301 
Philip James Emerson, Jr., 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
Michael Chilson et al., 
Defendants. 
O R D E R 
Plaintiff initiated this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Doc. 1. 
The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report 
recommending that the claims against all defendants, besides Mi-
chael Chilson and Jerry Hirsch, be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 
23 at 6. Plaintiff objected to the report. Doc. 26. 
The court reviews the objected -to portions of a magistrate 
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. 
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filing objections 
must specifically identify those findings objected to. 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. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass 
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 
Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en-
title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis-
trate judge without a compelling reason . See Cupit v. Whitley , 28 
F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). 
Plaintiff objects to the application of judicial immunity to his 
claims against Judge Parker. He argues that Judge Parker’s actions 
are non -judicial in nature because he committed errors in com-
pleting a bail form. Doc. 26 at 3. Acts that are normally perfo rmed 
by a judge in his judicial capacity are “judicial in nature.” Mireles 
v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991). A plaintiff cannot overcome judicial 
immunity by alleging that the actions were erroneous or ill - PageID #: 
<pageID>
- 2 - 
intended. Johnson v. Kegans, 870 F.2d 992, 995 (5th Cir. 1989) (cit-
ing Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349 , 356 –62 (1978)). Plaintiff 
failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted against Judge 
Parker. 
Plaintiff objects to the recommendation of dismissal for his 
failure-to-train claim against the district attorney, Angela Albers. 
Plaintiff alleges that three criminal proceedings were initiated 
against him relying on conflicting affidavits, resulting in an infer-
ence that Albers did not properly train her subordinates. Doc. 2 6 
at 6. Plaintiff submits that the allegedly false criminal complaints 
submitted against him show a causal link between a failure to train 
or supervise and the violation of his constitu tional rights, as well 
as deliberate indifference. Doc. 26 at 6–7. These conclusory state-
ments that Albers provided no supervision or training of her sub-
ordinates are insufficient to state a viable claim for relief. Tuchman 
v. DSC Comm c’ns Corp. , 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir. 1994). 
Next, plaintiff objects to the dismissal of his claim against 
Wood County. Plaintiff alleges that Wood County has “official 
policies and customs established by the Sheriff concerning (a) the 
[Holly Lake Ranch Association] ’s and its [security guard] s’ power 
to seize people and property, (b) securing warrants of arrest 
through false testimony, (c) interfering with use and enjoyment of 
business property, (d) interfering with civil property disputes, 
(e) citizens’ right to criticize government officials, and (f ) [Wood 
County Sheriff’s Office] employee and contractor theft of prop-
erty.” Doc. 18 at 10. Again, plaintiff puts forth conclusory state-
ments that policies exist instead of providing facts that identify an 
official policy. Plaintiff has not stated a claim for municipal liabil-
ity. 
Finally, plaintiff objects to the dismissal of defendants Chilson 
and Hirsch. Yet, the report does not recommend dismissal of ei-
ther of these defendants. Doc. 23 at 6. The objection lacks merit 
and is overruled. 
Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo and be-
ing satisfied that it commits no error, the court overrules PageID #: 
<pageID>
- 3 - 
plaintiff’s objections and accepts the report’s findings and recom-
mendation. The court dismisses the claims asserted against de-
fendants Albers; Parker; Holly Lake Ranch Association, Inc.; 
Jerry Clark Nunnally, Jr.; Wood County, Texas; S&R Towing and 
Recovery, LLC; Stetson Gage; and Kristina Paige Horn with prej-
udice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) . 
So ordered by the court on June 9, 2026 . 
 
 J. CAMPBELL BARKER 
United States District Judge PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight