Jackson v. Arthur

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH JACKSON PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-550-DPJ-ASH DEWEY ARTHUR, et. al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Kenneth Jackson filed this conditions-of-confinement complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. [1] at 3. On August 25, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris entered a Report and Recommendation [39]. Judge Harris recommends the following dispositions of Jackson’s pending motions to amend or add defendants: (1) Plaintiff’s Motions for Protective Order [5, 14] to amend his relief to include a transfer to another facility be denied;

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [6] to add “ALL Defendants previously named in the prior lawsuit” Jackson I and to add claims against those defendants be denied;

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [15] to add Bolivar County Regional Correctional Facility and Bolivar County Sheriff’s Department as defendants be denied;

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [17] to add Vital Core Health Providers as a defendant be denied without prejudice to refiling;

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion [18] to add M.D.H.S. State Disbursement Unit (S.D.U.) A.K.A. Mississippi Department of Human Services as a defendant be denied;

(6) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [19] to add Austin Phillp Gant Jr. and Sharon Case Gant A.K.A. William Case as defendants be denied without prejudice to refiling and his request to amend his relief to include release from Bolivar County Regional Correctional Facility be denied without prejudice to refiling;

(7) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [20] to add claims be denied without prejudice to refiling; and

(8) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [30] to add Issaquena Regional Correctional Facility as a defendant and his request to amend his relief for a protective order be denied.

R&R [39] at 10–11. Jackson did not file an objection and the time to do so has passed. See id. at 11–12 (informing Jackson that he had 14 days to file an objection). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983), quoted in Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). Having reviewed the record and found no clear error, the Court accepts the well-reasoned recommendations of Judge Harris. IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [39] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Harris is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court. Consistent with the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s motions [5, 6, 14, 15, 18, 30] are denied with prejudice, and Plaintiff’s motions [17, 19, 20] are denied without prejudice.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 16th day of September, 2025.

s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE