Adams v. Gracia

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: January 25, 2023
• Docket: 6:22-cv-00063
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION § ALEX ADAMS, #1181239, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:22-cv-63-JDK-KNM § WARDEN GRACIA, et al., § § Defendants. § § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Alex Adams, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Although Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis in this case, Docket No. 2, his prison trust account records indicated sufficient funds to pay the $402 filing fee for this suit, Docket No. 4. Accordingly, Judge Mitchell ordered Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee by May 31, 2022. Docket No. 6. After Plaintiff failed to comply with the Order, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to obey an order of the court. Docket No. 14. Plaintiff simultaneously filed objections to the Report, Docket No. 15, and a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Docket No. 16. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for want of prosecution on January 23, 2023. Cause No. 22-40633. Upon dismissal of the appeal, the Court now considers Plaintiffs objections to Judge Mitchell’s 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 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. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). In his objections, Plaintiff complains that he is required to pay a filing fee in each of his ten federal lawsuits. He further contends that the Court should withdraw small installments from his funds rather than requiring the payment of a full filing fee. Plaintiff does not, however, attack the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Report. See Docket No. 15. 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 Plaintiffs objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 14) as the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obey an order of the Court.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of January, 2023. fe J Korb JHKREMYD. KERN DLE 9g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE