Casey Lee Briggs v. Gregg County Jail et al.

E.D. Texas

Casey Lee Briggs v. Gregg County Jail et al.

DecidedOctober 17, 2025

Docket6:23-cv-00090

StatusUnknown

This text of Casey Lee Briggs v. Gregg County Jail et al. (Casey Lee Briggs v. Gregg County Jail et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casey Lee Briggs v. Gregg County Jail et al., (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00090 Casey Lee Briggs, Plaintiff, V. Gregg County Jail et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, an inmate of Gregg County Jail proceeding pro se, files this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 2. The magistrate judge is- sued a report recommending that plaintiff’s case be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Doc. 7 at 5. Specifically, the re- port noted that an inmate has no protected liberty interest in hav- ing jail grievances resolved to his satisfaction. Jd. at 4; Alexander vy. Tex. Dep’t Crim. Fust., 951 F.3d 236, 240 (finding that “prison- ers have no due process rights in the inmate grievances process”). As such, the report concluded that plaintiff’s allegations that jail officials failed to conduct a proper investigation into his griev- ances were without merit. Doc. 7 at 4. The report was mailed to plaintiff’s last known address. How- ever, plaintiff, to date, has not filed objections to the report or oth- erwise communicated with the court. Proof of mailing creates a presumption that the properly addressed letter reached its desti- nation in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 (5th Cir. 2019). When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being

-l-

satisfied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on October 17, 2025.

y/ ‘CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00090 Casey Lee Briggs, Plaintiff, V. Gregg County Jail et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, an inmate of Gregg County Jail proceeding pro se, files this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 2. The magistrate judge is- sued a report recommending that plaintiff’s case be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Doc. 7 at 5. Specifically, the re- port noted that an inmate has no protected liberty interest in hav- ing jail grievances resolved to his satisfaction. Jd. at 4; Alexander vy. Tex. Dep’t Crim. Fust., 951 F.3d 236, 240 (finding that “prison- ers have no due process rights in the inmate grievances process”). As such, the report concluded that plaintiff’s allegations that jail officials failed to conduct a proper investigation into his griev- ances were without merit. Doc. 7 at 4. The report was mailed to plaintiff’s last known address. How- ever, plaintiff, to date, has not filed objections to the report or oth- erwise communicated with the court. Proof of mailing creates a presumption that the properly addressed letter reached its desti- nation in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 (5th Cir. 2019). When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being

-l-

satisfied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on October 17, 2025.

y/ ‘CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Casey Lee Briggs v. Gregg County Jail et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-lee-briggs-v-gregg-county-jail-et-al-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack