Thomas v. Sanchez
This text of Thomas v. Sanchez (Thomas v. Sanchez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Thomas v. Sanchez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-sanchez-txsd-2023.