Patterson v. Rose

N.D. Texas

Patterson v. Rose

DecidedNovember 14, 2022

Docket5:21-cv-00142

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Patterson v. Rose, (N.D. Tex. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION PERRY PATTERSON, § Institutional ID No. 1673121 § § Plaintiff, § Vv. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-00142-C § DR. LINDA ROSE, 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 in this case. Plaintiff timely filed objections. The undersigned Senior United States District Judge has conducted an independent, de

novo review of the relevant portions of the record in this case and has examined the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED. The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint and all claims alleged therein

are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.§§ 1915 and 1915A|! This dismissal shall count as a qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C.§§ 1915 and 1915A and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (Sth Cir. 1996).

' As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to state a federal or constitutional claim. This order does not prejudice Plaintiff's right to pursue relief under state law for his claims for property loss or medical malpractice.

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). Plaintiff is advised that if he appeals this Order, he will be required to pay the appeal fee of $505.00 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 shall be entered accordingly. SO ORDERED. po Dated November_(4, 2022. Z| / fo PY ree, / oop [po7* \ SAMR/ CUMMINGS {/ Senior UnitedStates District Judge

/

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION PERRY PATTERSON, § Institutional ID No. 1673121 § § Plaintiff, § Vv. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-00142-C § DR. LINDA ROSE, 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 in this case. Plaintiff timely filed objections. The undersigned Senior United States District Judge has conducted an independent, de

novo review of the relevant portions of the record in this case and has examined the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED. The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint and all claims alleged therein

are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.§§ 1915 and 1915A|! This dismissal shall count as a qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C.§§ 1915 and 1915A and Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (Sth Cir. 1996).

' As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to state a federal or constitutional claim. This order does not prejudice Plaintiff's right to pursue relief under state law for his claims for property loss or medical malpractice.

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). Plaintiff is advised that if he appeals this Order, he will be required to pay the appeal fee of $505.00 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 shall be entered accordingly. SO ORDERED. po Dated November_(4, 2022. Z| / fo PY ree, / oop [po7* \ SAMR/ CUMMINGS {/ Senior UnitedStates District Judge

/

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Patterson v. Rose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-rose-txnd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack