Hutchins v. Ringo

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 9:25-cv-00236
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BRIAN HUTCHINS, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:22-CV-109 § (cons. with 9:22cv110) C. GIBSON, et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Brian Hutchins, an inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled consolidated lawsuits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against C. Gibson and T. Ringo. The court previously referred these matters to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and orders of this court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the cases be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court has received the Report and Recommendation, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court must therefore conduct a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. Plaintiff asserts two claims in this matter: (1) a denial of due process claim against defendant Gibson in connection with a disciplinary proceeding and (2) a malicious prosecution claim against defendant Ringo. Plaintiff states in his objections that he did not lose good conduct time as a result of his disciplinary proceeding. As plaintiff was therefore not entitled to due process in connection with the disciplinary proceeding, Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 776 (Sth Cir. 2007), he has failed to state a claim against defendant Gibson upon which relief may be granted. With respect to the claim against defendant Ringo, plaintiff clarifies in his objections that his disciplinary conviction was overturned as a result of a grievance he filed. As a result, plaintiff may state a claim against defendant Ringo. The court is of the opinion the claim against defendant Ringo should be severed into a separate lawsuit.’ ORDER Accordingly, the objections filed by plaintiff in these matters (#18) are OVERRULED. insofar as they concern the claim against defendant Gibson. With respect to this claim, the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the report of the magistrate judge (#16) are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. The malicious prosecution claim against defendant Ringo is SEVERED from this lawsuit and shall proceed as a new lawsuit. The complaint in this matter (#1) shall be filed as the initial pleading in the new lawsuit. With respect to the sole remaining claim, the denial of due process claim against defendant Gibson, a final judgment shall be entered in accordance with the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 28th day of August, 2025.

PNww be Orne. MARCIA A.CRONE- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

! Plaintiff correctly states he named additional defendants in this matter. The claims against the additional defendants were previously severed into a separate lawsuit.