Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Pete v. Abbott
(2026)
Case details
Full caption
David R. Pete v. Greg Abbott, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
Disposition
Dismissed
Majority
Of The (J.) (unanimous Court)
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR
THE
EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF
TEXAS
BEAUMONT
DIVISION
DAVID
R.
PETE,
Plaintiff
,
v.
GREG
ABBOTT
,
in
h
is
official
capacity
as
GOVERNOR
of
the
STATE
OF
TEXAS;
and
KEN
PAXTON
,
in
his
official
capacity
as
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
OF
THE
STATE
OF
TEXAS
Defendant
s
.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL
ACTION
NO.
1:25
-
CV
-
00
3
9
6
-
M
JT
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
C
ourt
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.
T
EX
.
L
OC
.
R.
CV
-
72.
On
November
20,
2025,
th
e
Cou
rt
ordered
pro
se
Plaintiff
David
R.
Pete
to
show
cause
as
to
w
h
y
he
should
not
be
sanctioned
under
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
11(b)
for
his
misuse
of
artifi
cial
intell
igence
(AI)
in
this
action.
See
[Dkt.
12].
Pursuant
to
that
order,
Judge
Stetson
conducted
a
n
in
-
person
show
-
cause
hearing
with
Plaintiff
on
January
6,
2026.
[Dkts.
13,
1
6
,
17
].
There
a
fter,
on
May
7,
2026,
Judge
Stetson
issued
a
Rep
ort
and
Recommendation
finding
that
sanction
s
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
a
fter
the
show
-
cause
hearing.
See
[Dkt.
20].
Case
1:25-cv-00396-MJT-CLS
Document
22
Filed
06/15/26
Page
1
of
2
PageID
#:
148
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.
2
0
]
is
ADOPTED
;
and
(2)
Plaintiff
is
SANCTIONED
under
Rule
11(b)
and
shall
pay
to
the
court:
(
a)
$100
for
his
factual
misr
epresentations
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
fail
ure
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.
2
0
at
1];
but
see
id.
at
7
(falsely
claiming
that
he
filed
his
objections
via
the
Court
’
s
CM/ECF
system).
2
Th
e
Court
also
reviewed
th
e
transcrip
t
of
th
e
show-caus
e
hearing
and
Plaintiff
’
s
other
filings
cited
in
Judg
e
Stets
on
’
s
Report
and
Recommendation.
____________________________
Michael
J.
Truncale
United
States
District
Judge
SIGNED
this
15th
day
of
June,
2026.
Case
1:25-cv-00396-MJT-CLS
Document
22
Filed
06/15/26
Page
2
of
2
PageID
#:
149
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access