Miller v. United States

E.D. Texas

Miller v. United States

DecidedJune 7, 2024

Docket5:23-cv-00077

StatusUnknown

This text of Miller v. United States (Miller v. United States) 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

Miller v. United States, (E.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION § DANIEL MILLER § § , § § v. § Case No. 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § § . § § ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Daniel Miller, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act complaining of an injury he suffered at work while incarcerated. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on February 26, 2024, recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 8). The Magistrate Judge observed that by statute, the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4126, provides the sole remedy for a prisoner injured while at work. Thompson v. United States, 495 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1974). As a result, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report on March 1, 2024, but no objections have been received. 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, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”) It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 8) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED.

So Ordered this Jun 6, 2024

RODNEY GIL yf RAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION § DANIEL MILLER § § , § § v. § Case No. 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § § . § § ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Daniel Miller, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act complaining of an injury he suffered at work while incarcerated. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on February 26, 2024, recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 8). The Magistrate Judge observed that by statute, the Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4126, provides the sole remedy for a prisoner injured while at work. Thompson v. United States, 495 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1974). As a result, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report on March 1, 2024, but no objections have been received. 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, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”) It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 8) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED.

So Ordered this Jun 6, 2024

RODNEY GIL yf RAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Miller v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-united-states-txed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack