Cisneros v. Collier

Full title: MANUEL CISNEROS, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN COLLIER, ET AL., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Date published: Apr 13, 2020

Case No. 6:19-CV-112-JDK-JDL (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 6:19-CV-112-JDK-JDL

04-13-2020

MANUEL CISNEROS, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN COLLIER, ET AL., Defendants.

JEREMY D. KERNODLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Manuel Cisneros, 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 March 2, 2020, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 24), recommending that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Id. at 13. A return receipt indicating delivery to Plaintiff was received by the Clerk on March 25, 2020. Docket No. 25.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Plaintiff did not file objections in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law").

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 24) as the findings of this Court.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Docket No. 24) be ADOPTED. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's suit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of April, 2020.

/s/_________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE