Henry Brown v. John G. Roberts, et al.

E.D. Texas

Henry Brown v. John G. Roberts, et al.

DecidedNovember 7, 2025

Docket6:24-cv-00212

StatusUnknown

This text of Henry Brown v. John G. Roberts, et al. (Henry Brown v. John G. Roberts, 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

Henry Brown v. John G. Roberts, et al., (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

HENRY BROWN, #0747413, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-212-JDK-KNM § JOHN G. ROBERTS, et al., § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Henry Brown, a prisoner within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit on June 11, 2024, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. 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 issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 24) recommending that Plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed, with prejudice, as both frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Specifically, Judge Mitchell found that Plaintiff’s claims regarding a federal and state-wide crime ring, “male judges,” minerals and treasuries becoming his sovereign property because he is “King,” and his unique illness within the scripture concerning females are fanciful, irrational, and clearly baseless. See Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992) (“Examples of complaints within the clearly baseless category are those which describe fanciful, fantastic, or delusional scenarios.”). A copy of the Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last-known address, with an

acknowledgment card. The docket reflects that Plaintiff received a copy of the Report. Docket No. 26. However, despite a significant lapse of time, Plaintiff neither filed objections to the report nor otherwise responded. The time for filing objections has now passed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service 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). Here, Plaintiff did not file any objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal

conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 24) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Any pending motions are DENIED as moot. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of November, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

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

HENRY BROWN, #0747413, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-212-JDK-KNM § JOHN G. ROBERTS, et al., § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Henry Brown, a prisoner within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit on June 11, 2024, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. 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 issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 24) recommending that Plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed, with prejudice, as both frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Specifically, Judge Mitchell found that Plaintiff’s claims regarding a federal and state-wide crime ring, “male judges,” minerals and treasuries becoming his sovereign property because he is “King,” and his unique illness within the scripture concerning females are fanciful, irrational, and clearly baseless. See Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc., 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992) (“Examples of complaints within the clearly baseless category are those which describe fanciful, fantastic, or delusional scenarios.”). A copy of the Report was sent to Plaintiff at his last-known address, with an

acknowledgment card. The docket reflects that Plaintiff received a copy of the Report. Docket No. 26. However, despite a significant lapse of time, Plaintiff neither filed objections to the report nor otherwise responded. The time for filing objections has now passed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service 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). Here, Plaintiff did not file any objections. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal

conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 24) as the findings of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Any pending motions are DENIED as moot. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of November, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Henry Brown v. John G. Roberts, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-brown-v-john-g-roberts-et-al-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack