Umphries v. Smith County, Texas

E.D. Texas

Umphries v. Smith County, Texas

DecidedMarch 18, 2020

Docket6:19-cv-00592

StatusUnknown

This text of Umphries v. Smith County, Texas (Umphries v. Smith County, Texas) 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

Umphries v. Smith County, Texas, (E.D. Tex. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION § RICKY LEE UMPHRIES, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:19-CV-592-JDK-JDL § SMITH COUNTY, ET AL., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Ricky Lee Umphries, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On February 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 21), recommending that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 9. Plaintiff filed objections on March 9, 2020. Docket No. 22. In his objections, Plaintiff largely restates the allegations in his Amended Complaint. Id. at 1–2. As the Magistrate properly concluded, however, Plaintiff's slipping and falling in his cell amounts to nothing more than unreasonableness or negligence, and it does not qualify as deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Atkins v. Sheriff’s Jail Avoyelles Parish, 278 F. App’x 438, 439 (5th Cir. 2008); McLaughlin v. Farries, 122 F. App’x 692, 693 (5th Cir. 2004). Further, Plaintiff also failed to state a claim for failure to protect against Defendant Smith because Plaintiff does not allege that Smith was personally involved in making the housing decisions that placed Plaintiff in the same cell as inmate Deer or that Smith knew that Deer would assault Plaintiff. See Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446 (Sth Cir. 2011); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (Sth Cir. 1986). Plaintiff also failed to allege that Smith implemented unconstitutional policies that causally resulted in his injuries. See Porter, 659 F.3d at 446. Plaintiffs claims must therefore be dismissed. 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. 21) be ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s suit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of March, 2020. qe D Kobe JERQMY D, KERNODIE 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 § RICKY LEE UMPHRIES, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:19-CV-592-JDK-JDL § SMITH COUNTY, ET AL., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Ricky Lee Umphries, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On February 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 21), recommending that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 9. Plaintiff filed objections on March 9, 2020. Docket No. 22. In his objections, Plaintiff largely restates the allegations in his Amended Complaint. Id. at 1–2. As the Magistrate properly concluded, however, Plaintiff's slipping and falling in his cell amounts to nothing more than unreasonableness or negligence, and it does not qualify as deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Atkins v. Sheriff’s Jail Avoyelles Parish, 278 F. App’x 438, 439 (5th Cir. 2008); McLaughlin v. Farries, 122 F. App’x 692, 693 (5th Cir. 2004). Further, Plaintiff also failed to state a claim for failure to protect against Defendant Smith because Plaintiff does not allege that Smith was personally involved in making the housing decisions that placed Plaintiff in the same cell as inmate Deer or that Smith knew that Deer would assault Plaintiff. See Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446 (Sth Cir. 2011); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (Sth Cir. 1986). Plaintiff also failed to allege that Smith implemented unconstitutional policies that causally resulted in his injuries. See Porter, 659 F.3d at 446. Plaintiffs claims must therefore be dismissed. 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. 21) be ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s suit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of March, 2020. qe D Kobe JERQMY D, KERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Umphries v. Smith County, Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/umphries-v-smith-county-texas-txed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack