Kedrien Booker v. Lataya Hall, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION KEDRIEN BOOKER, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CASE NO. 5:25-CV-160-RWS-JBB § LATAYA HALL, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Plaintiff Kedrien Booker, a prisoner currently confined in the Garfield County Jail in Enid, Oklahoma and proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See generally Docket No. 1. Plaintiff alleges Defendants deprived him of his constitutional rights during his confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division. Id. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff’s complaint states that on September 17, 2025, another inmate assaulted him by biting his arm while officers stood by and watched. Id. at 4. The lawsuit is signed September 24, 2025. Id. at 5. After reviewing the pleadings, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on December 1, 2025, recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Docket No. 9. Plaintiff received copies of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on February 26, 2026 and March 10, 2026 (Docket Nos. 18, 19), but he has filed no objections to date. As a result, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017). The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. After review, the Court concludes that the report and recommendation is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Docket No. 9) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The dismissal of this lawsuit shall count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Emmett v. Ebner, 423 F.App’x 492, 493-94 (Sth Cir. 2011) (district court properly dismissed lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, predicated on failure to exhaust administrative remedies; district court’s dismissal of the complaint counted as a strike). The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Administrator of the Three Strikes List for the Eastern District of Texas. It is further ORDERED that all pending motions in this civil action are hereby DENIED-AS-MOOT. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of May, 2026.

[Dohert LU Lbrpectsr G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2