Thomas v. Sanchez

Opinion

UNITSETDA TDEISS TRICT COURT May 11, 2023 SOUTHEDRINS TROIFCT TE XAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUCSH RISDTIIV ISION JEWETLHLO MAS, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVAICLT IONON. 2:-2C2V-00152 § JERRYS ANCHEeZat,l ., § § Defendants. § ORDEARD OPTIMNEGM ORAND&UR ME COMMENDATION Beforteh eC ouritsM agistJruadtgMeei tchNeelu rocMke'mso ranadnudm Recommen(d"aMt&iR(o"Dn). 2.E0 .T) h.Me & Rr ecommtehfoneld lso wing: • ThCeo urrett Paliani nEtiigffhAstm he ndmdeenlti bienrdaitfefc elraeinmcse agaiDnesfte nDdarIn.st asKa wca rt(e"nDKgrw .a rteinnhg i"is)n dividual capafocrmi otnye traerlayin eidfnh iosffi cicaalp afocrii tnyj unrcetliiveef ; • TheC ourrett Paliani nAtmieffrsi wciatnDhsi slaibtAiice(ts" ADAa"n)d RehabiAlci(tt" aRtAci"lo)ana i gmasit nhSsett ao tfTe e xaansDd e fenDdra.nts KwartWeanrgdJ,ee nr ry Sanchez (a"nWTdae rxdDaeesnp aSratnmcehnetz"), ofC riminal JuBsotbibLcyue m pDk(ii"rnDe icrtLeoucrmt pokrii nnt "h)e ir officicaalp acities; o ThCeo udrits mPilsasi n§t1 i9f8cf3ls a foirmms o nedya maaggeasi Dnrs.t KwartaenWndag r den iSantn hceohifferiz cc iaapla cwiittiheosu t apsrejudice barbryet dhE el evAemnetnhd ment; • ThCeo udrits mPilsasi nEtiigfAhfmtseh n dmdeenlti bienrdaitffeec rleanicmes agaiWnasrtdS eann cwhietpzhr ejuadsfri icveo olrofo urfas i ltuorse t aate clauipmow nh ircehl miaebyf eg ranted; • ThCeo udrits mPilsasi netqiupfarflos t eccltaiaiogmnas iD nrKs.wt a rtaenndg Warden Siantn hceihinerdz i vidouffiaclic aaalpn adcw iittpihre esj uadsice frivoolrfoo rufa si ltuosr teaa ct lea uipmow nh ircehl miaebyfe g ranatnedd; •·T heC oudrits mPilsasi nAtDiAfa fnsRd A c laiamgsa iDnrsK.tw arteng, Warden SaannDdci hreezLc,ut moprki intn h eiinrd ivciadpuaacwlii ttihes prejuadsfr iicveo lofourfas i loturors et aact lea uipmow nh ircehl miaeybf e granted. (D.E. 20, p. 22). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp., 512 F. Supp. 3d 741, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 20). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: e The Court RETAINS Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Dr. K warteng in his individual capacity for monetary relief and in his official capacity for injunctive relief; e The Court RETAINS Plaintiff's ADA and RA claims against the State of Texas and Defendants Dr. Kwarteng, Warden Sanchez, and Director Lumpkin in their official capacities; e The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs § 1983 claims for money damages against Dr. Kwarteng and Warden Sanchez in their official capacities without prejudice; e The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Warden Sanchez with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; e The Court DISMISS Plaintiff's equal protection claims against Dr. Kwarteng and Warden Sanchez in their individual and official capacities with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and e The Court DISMISS Plaintiff's ADA and RA claims against Dr. Kwarteng, Warden Sanchez, and Director Lumpkin in their individual capacities with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 2/3

granted. SO ORDERED. | | | DA S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas May _/ pte 2023

3/3