McCall v. LaSalle Corrections Rolling Plains Detention Center

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00199
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ABILENE DIVISION RAFI WALI MCCALL, Institutional ID No. 83073-080, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:21-CV-00199-H LASALLE CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation that this case be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Plaintiff filed objections. “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In contrast, the district judge reviews any unobjected-to findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the unobjected-to portions of the FCR for plain error and, finding none, expressly accepts and adopts those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Additionally, in light of Plaintiffs specific objections, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant portions of the FCR and the record in this case. The Court finds that Plaintiffs objections are without merit, overrules Plaintiff's objections and accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

The Court therefore orders: 1. Plaintiffs complaint, and all claims alleged in it, are dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1). 2 Dismissal of this action does not release Plaintiff or the institution where he is incarcerated from the obligation to pay any filing fee previously imposed. See Williams v. Roberts, 116 F.3d 1126, 1128 (5th Cir. 1997). 3. This dismissal will count as a qualifying dismissal, or “strike,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385 (Sth Cir. 1996). See Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 590 U.S.___, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (2020). Plaintiff is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 4. All relief not expressly granted is denied, and any pending motions are denied. 5. Plaintiff is advised that if he appeals this order, he will be required to pay the appeal fee of $605.00 pursuant to the PLRA, and he must submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a 6-month certificate of inmate trust account at the same time he files his notice of appeal. Judgment will be entered accordingly. So ordered on February 4 , 2025. AG anty RCE UNITED/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE