Broderick Morgan v. Capt. Daniel Lakin, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00119
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

BRODERICK MORGAN, #1586318, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-119-JDK-KNM § CAPT. DANIEL LAKIN, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 about alleged violations of his constitutional rights in prison. 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. Judge Mitchell has authorized Plaintiff to serve many of the dozens of Defendants against whom Plaintiff has brought claims. Docket Nos. 13, 24. On January 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and Recommendation that several other Defendants—Holman, Neal, Mica Lakin, Love, and Unknown Nurse— be dismissed as defendants to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against them. Docket No. 26. A copy of this Report was mailed to Plaintiff, who filed written objections. Docket No. 34. 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 Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other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). A party objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report must specifically identify those findings to which he objects. Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the District Judge. See Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Furthermore, objections that simply rehash or mirror

the underlying claims addressed in the Report are not sufficient to entitle the party to de novo review. See U.S. v. Morales, 947 F.Supp.2d 166, 171 (D.P.R. 2013) (“Even though timely objections to a report and recommendation entitle the objecting party to de novo review of the findings, ‘the district court should be spared the chore of traversing ground already plowed by the Magistrate.’”) (internal citations omitted); see also Vega v. Artuz, 2002 WL 31174466 *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2002) (unpublished) (“However, objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to

engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the magistrate judge’s recommendations.”). Judge Mitchell recommended dismissal of the Defendants in question because, as a matter of clearly established law in this Circuit, Defendant Holman was not acting under color of state law as required to state a claim under Section 1983, and the facts alleged about the other Defendants also fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Docket No. 26 at 7-8. Plaintiffs objections rehash his claims against these Defendants, but he fails to identify any error in the Report. See Docket No. 34. The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the record and the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) (District Judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Upon such de novo review, the Court has determined that the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff's objections are without merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 26) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff's objections (Docket No. 34) are OVERRULED. Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Holman, Neal, Mica Lakin, Love, and Unknown Nurse are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of February, 2026.

JHREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE