McClure v. Unknown Parties

E.D. Texas

McClure v. Unknown Parties

DecidedAugust 25, 2021

Docket6:21-cv-00193

StatusUnknown

This text of McClure v. Unknown Parties (McClure v. Unknown Parties) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McClure v. Unknown Parties, (E.D. Tex. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:21-cv-00193 Robert Troy McClure, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Duty Warden et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Robert Troy McClure, an inmate in the Texas prison system, filed this lawsuit against defendants Unknown Duty War- den, Unknown Townsend, Unknown Collum, Unknown Party, and Unknown Jorden, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claims against Unknown Party and Unknown Jorden were severed and transferred to the Southern District of Texas. Doc. 3. The remaining case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) concluding that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for pur- poses of in forma pauperis proceedings pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff filed objections to the re- port. Doc. 6. When a party files specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). General, vague, conclusive, or frivolous ob- jections, however, will not suffice. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). In such cases, the court will only review the magistrate judge’s findings to determine if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. See Gallegos v. Equity Title Co. of Am., Inc., 484 F. Supp. 2d 589, 591 (W.D. Tex. 2007) (citations omit- ted).

Here, plaintiff’s objections largely restate the allegations listed in his complaint. To the extent that facts alleged in plaintiff’s objec- tions conflict with the magistrate judge’s characterization in the re- port and recommendation, the discrepancies claimed do not make a difference in concluding that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that an ongoing pattern of misconduct evinces a likelihood of imminent, serious bodily injury. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as well as the objections, the court overrules the plaintiffs objections and accepts the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. The court orders that plaintiff’s civil rights action is dismissed with prejudice for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). So ordered by the court on August 25, 2021. fleck BARKER United States District Judge

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:21-cv-00193 Robert Troy McClure, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Duty Warden et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Robert Troy McClure, an inmate in the Texas prison system, filed this lawsuit against defendants Unknown Duty War- den, Unknown Townsend, Unknown Collum, Unknown Party, and Unknown Jorden, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claims against Unknown Party and Unknown Jorden were severed and transferred to the Southern District of Texas. Doc. 3. The remaining case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) concluding that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for pur- poses of in forma pauperis proceedings pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff filed objections to the re- port. Doc. 6. When a party files specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which [an] objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). General, vague, conclusive, or frivolous ob- jections, however, will not suffice. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). In such cases, the court will only review the magistrate judge’s findings to determine if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. See Gallegos v. Equity Title Co. of Am., Inc., 484 F. Supp. 2d 589, 591 (W.D. Tex. 2007) (citations omit- ted).

Here, plaintiff’s objections largely restate the allegations listed in his complaint. To the extent that facts alleged in plaintiff’s objec- tions conflict with the magistrate judge’s characterization in the re- port and recommendation, the discrepancies claimed do not make a difference in concluding that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that an ongoing pattern of misconduct evinces a likelihood of imminent, serious bodily injury. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as well as the objections, the court overrules the plaintiffs objections and accepts the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. The court orders that plaintiff’s civil rights action is dismissed with prejudice for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). So ordered by the court on August 25, 2021. fleck BARKER United States District Judge

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McClure v. Unknown Parties, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclure-v-unknown-parties-txed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack