Adams v. Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID

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-177-JDK-KNM § DIRECTOR BOBBY LUMPKIN, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Alex Adams, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se and , filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On May 10, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s civil rights lawsuit be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Docket No. 6. Plaintiff received a copy of the Report on May 20, 2022, and he did not file written objections to the Report. Docket No. 8. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 6) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Plaintiff is advised that this dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of June, 2022. qe D Kobe JERQMY D, RERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE