Clemons v. White

E.D. Texas

Clemons v. White

DecidedSeptember 26, 2025

Docket6:24-cv-00225

StatusUnknown

This text of Clemons v. White (Clemons v. White) 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

Clemons v. White, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00225 Billy Don Clemons, Plaintiff, V. Dr. White et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that he was denied medical care while imprisoned in Gregg County Jail. Doc. 11. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 4. The magistrate judge issued an initial report recommending dismissal of all de- fendants except Dr. White, who was ordered to answer. Docs. 17, 20. Dr. White answered and filed a motion for summary judge- ment (Doc. 31) based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his adminis- trative remedies. The magistrate judge issued a second report recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted. Doc. 32 at 6. The report also recommended that the claims against the other defendants be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his ad- ministrative remedies. Jd.; see Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 768 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that a district court may grant summary judgment to non-moving defendants where the summary judg- ment motion of a different defendant establishes that the plaintiff has no cause of action). Plaintiff did not object or otherwise respond to the motion for summary judgment or to either report issued by the magistrate judge. When there have been no timely objections to a report, or the objections are improper, “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.

-l-

Having reviewed the record and being satisfied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommen- dations. All claims in this matter are dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on September 26, 2025. fLacbok 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. 6:24-cv-00225 Billy Don Clemons, Plaintiff, V. Dr. White et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that he was denied medical care while imprisoned in Gregg County Jail. Doc. 11. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 4. The magistrate judge issued an initial report recommending dismissal of all de- fendants except Dr. White, who was ordered to answer. Docs. 17, 20. Dr. White answered and filed a motion for summary judge- ment (Doc. 31) based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his adminis- trative remedies. The magistrate judge issued a second report recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted. Doc. 32 at 6. The report also recommended that the claims against the other defendants be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his ad- ministrative remedies. Jd.; see Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 768 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that a district court may grant summary judgment to non-moving defendants where the summary judg- ment motion of a different defendant establishes that the plaintiff has no cause of action). Plaintiff did not object or otherwise respond to the motion for summary judgment or to either report issued by the magistrate judge. When there have been no timely objections to a report, or the objections are improper, “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.

-l-

Having reviewed the record and being satisfied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommen- dations. All claims in this matter are dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on September 26, 2025. fLacbok BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clemons v. White, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clemons-v-white-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack