Alvarez v. Regional Director

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 26, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JOAQUIN ALVAREZ, § Plaintiff, VS.. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00222 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ef al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 23). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.). Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 23). Accordingly:

(1) The Court RETAINS the following claims: a. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim for pushing and/or shoving against John Doe Transportation Officer No. 1 in his individual capacity; and

1/2

b. Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim regarding the conditions of Plaintiff's confinement in administrative segregation against Warden Sifuentes in his individual capacity. See (D.E. 20). (2) The Court further: a. DISMISSES Plaintiffs claim for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment; b. DISMISSES with prejudice as moot Plaintiff's claim seeking injunctive relief against Warden Sifuentes in his official capacity; and c. DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). See (D.E. 20).

SO ORDERED. ff

DANUDS. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas May @¢4$2022

2/2