Hubbard v. Newman

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: June 4, 2025
• Docket: 9:24-cv-00114
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ALFONZO HUBBARD, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:24-CV-114 § C. NEWMAN, et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Alfonzo Hubbard, an inmate confined at the Polunsky Unit in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against C. Newman, Lt. McDaniel, and D. Sanders. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the above-styled action as frivolous and for failing to state a claim. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes plaintiff’s objections are without merit. To the extent plaintiff attempts to bring criminal charges for theft against the defendants, plaintiff’s claims are without merit. “[D]ecisions whether to prosecute or file criminal charges are generally within the prosecutor’s discretion, and, as a private citizen, [plaintiff] has no standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution and no power to enforce a criminal statute.” Gill v. State of Texas, 153 F. App’x 261, 262 (5th Cir. 2005). Further, to the extent plaintiff complains defendant Sanders failed to conduct a proper investigation, plaintiffs claims lack merit. Inmates do not have constitutionally protected liberty interest in having their complaints resolved to their satisfaction, and so there is no constitutional violation when prison officials fail to do so. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (“Geiger does not have a federally protected liberty interest in having these grievances resolved to his satisfaction. As plaintiff relies on a legally nonexistent interest, any alleged due process violation arising from the alleged failure to investigate his grievances is indisputably meritless”). Therefore, plaintiff's objections are without merit. ORDER Accordingly, plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 4th day of June, 2025.

PN &. Oo MARCIA A.CRONE- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE