Morgan v. Director of TDCJ

E.D. Texas

Morgan v. Director of TDCJ

DecidedApril 30, 2020

Docket6:20-cv-00062

StatusUnknown

This text of Morgan v. Director of TDCJ (Morgan v. Director of TDCJ) 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

Morgan v. Director of TDCJ, (E.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION § ARNOLD MORGAN, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:20-CV-62-JDK-KNM § DIRECTOR OF TDCJ, ET AL., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Arnold Morgan, Jr., an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On March 31, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 16) recommending that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 11. Plaintiff filed objections on April 22, 2020. Docket No. 18. The Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff merely restates the allegations in his Amended Complaint. Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the Court. See Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Further, Plaintiff does not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s proper conclusions that (1) Plaintiff could not state a claim upon which relief may be granted for his claims against Defendants in their official capacities for money damages, see Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 742 (5th Cir. 2002); (2) Plaintiff failed to show that any Defendant was personally involved in any act or omission that deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights, see Silva v. Moses, 542 F. App’x 308, 310-11 (Sth Cir. 2013); and (3) Plaintiff's claims about the conditions of his confinement fail to state a claim because Plaintiff failed to allege that he was exposed to “unreasonably high levels of [environmental tobacco smoke],” see Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993). Having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and Plaintiff's objections are without merit. The Court therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 16) be ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's suit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of April, 2020. qe D Kobe JERQMY D, RERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION § ARNOLD MORGAN, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:20-CV-62-JDK-KNM § DIRECTOR OF TDCJ, ET AL., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Arnold Morgan, Jr., an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On March 31, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 16) recommending that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 11. Plaintiff filed objections on April 22, 2020. Docket No. 18. The Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff merely restates the allegations in his Amended Complaint. Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the Court. See Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Further, Plaintiff does not dispute the Magistrate Judge’s proper conclusions that (1) Plaintiff could not state a claim upon which relief may be granted for his claims against Defendants in their official capacities for money damages, see Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 742 (5th Cir. 2002); (2) Plaintiff failed to show that any Defendant was personally involved in any act or omission that deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights, see Silva v. Moses, 542 F. App’x 308, 310-11 (Sth Cir. 2013); and (3) Plaintiff's claims about the conditions of his confinement fail to state a claim because Plaintiff failed to allege that he was exposed to “unreasonably high levels of [environmental tobacco smoke],” see Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993). Having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and Plaintiff's objections are without merit. The Court therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 16) be ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's suit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of April, 2020. qe D Kobe JERQMY D, RERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Morgan v. Director of TDCJ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-director-of-tdcj-txed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack