Givens v. Cerliano

E.D. Texas

Givens v. Cerliano

DecidedJune 17, 2020

Docket6:20-cv-00164

StatusUnknown

This text of Givens v. Cerliano (Givens v. Cerliano) 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

Givens v. Cerliano, (E.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:20-cv-00164 Henry Lee Givens, Plaintiff, v. Maxey Cerliano, Defendant. Before BARKER, District Judge ORDER Henry Lee Givens, an inmate in Gregg County Jail who is proceeding pro se, filed this action on March 30, 2020. Doc. 1. He claims that Sheriff Maxey Cerliano has taken inadequate precautions to protect the jail’s inmates from the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at 4. Givens seeks money damages for “mental anguish.” Id. The case was referred to United States Magis- trate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. Doc. 3. On April 2, 2020, Judge Mitchell issued a report and recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Doc. 5 at 3. Judge Mitchell found that dismissal was warranted on the ground that a prisoner cannot bring a civil action for mental or emotional injury that he suffered while in jail unless he also shows physical injury. Id. at 1-2. Givens filed generalized objections to the report and recom- mendation on May 4, 2020. Doc. 6. He did not object specifi- cally to any portion of the report and recommendation. See id. The court must conduct a de novo review of “those por- tions of the report or specified proposed findings or recom- mendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To obtain de novo review, the objecting party must “pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the court must specially consider.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 656 F.2d 986, 987 (5th Cir. 1981), on reh’g, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). The dis- trict court is not required to entertain “[f]rivolous, conclusive

or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8, overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Therefore, this court re- views the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error. Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1420. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the report and recommendation (Doc. 5) is adopted. This case is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Any outstanding motions are denied as moot. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

So ordered by the court on June 17, 2020. birch. oy 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. 6:20-cv-00164 Henry Lee Givens, Plaintiff, v. Maxey Cerliano, Defendant. Before BARKER, District Judge ORDER Henry Lee Givens, an inmate in Gregg County Jail who is proceeding pro se, filed this action on March 30, 2020. Doc. 1. He claims that Sheriff Maxey Cerliano has taken inadequate precautions to protect the jail’s inmates from the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at 4. Givens seeks money damages for “mental anguish.” Id. The case was referred to United States Magis- trate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. Doc. 3. On April 2, 2020, Judge Mitchell issued a report and recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Doc. 5 at 3. Judge Mitchell found that dismissal was warranted on the ground that a prisoner cannot bring a civil action for mental or emotional injury that he suffered while in jail unless he also shows physical injury. Id. at 1-2. Givens filed generalized objections to the report and recom- mendation on May 4, 2020. Doc. 6. He did not object specifi- cally to any portion of the report and recommendation. See id. The court must conduct a de novo review of “those por- tions of the report or specified proposed findings or recom- mendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To obtain de novo review, the objecting party must “pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the court must specially consider.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 656 F.2d 986, 987 (5th Cir. 1981), on reh’g, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). The dis- trict court is not required to entertain “[f]rivolous, conclusive

or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8, overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Therefore, this court re- views the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error. Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1420. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the report and recommendation (Doc. 5) is adopted. This case is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Any outstanding motions are denied as moot. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

So ordered by the court on June 17, 2020. birch. oy CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Givens v. Cerliano, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/givens-v-cerliano-txed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack